# This is a possible explanation for why ‘c’ interaction is independent of our speed, maybe

#### Gibsense

If the speed of light and time are defined by the expansion rate of an n-sphere universe.

Maybe:

• If our universe and the World of Quantum Mechanics are separate entities
• If Quantum Mechanics is a definition of ‘how particles are’ in a malleable future and a fixed past, say.
• If our universe and QM world interact similarly to, say, a shock wave over a landscape analogy. The shock wave is analogous to our universe expanding. The landscape analogous to the QM world
• If our universe ‘fixes’ the QM world as it interacts and the future exists but it is malleable then some things or processes in the universe may be able to influence the fixing process
• If a photon has no time, then it has no speed
• If time is produced by the expansion of the universe (and the above ‘ifs’), then:
• The photon exists in the future
• The illusion of its speed is (simply) the time it takes for an observer to arrive and interact with it in the future. That is the time it takes for the universe’s observer to interact
• Draw a line at 45 degrees from a point on a horizontal line (the origin of a photon). The line at 45 degrees stretches ‘forever’ and represents the photon’s existence in the future in the QM world.
• The horizontal line is space in our universe (distance). Place a man with a photon interceptor, 299792458 km away (along the line) from the photon origin.
• Await 1 second and the man is 1 second into the QM world future as he has moved 1 second vertically; intercepting the existing 45-degree line of the photon’s existence. It appears as if the photon has a speed of ‘c’.
• The illusion of photon speed is that the photon already exists in the future but it takes time for the universe to arrive
• If we think some more about this it becomes clear why ‘c’ cannot be exceeded and why light always impacts at c:
• The apparent speed of light is only dependent on the fact that it exists (as if forever in all future until interfered) and the universe moving forward in its interaction with the QM world in its time (expansion)
• The speed of the interceptor on the horizontal line becomes quite irrelevant at any point where it moves forward in time to intercept the photon its distance from origin will always be in the proportion to ‘c’.
• ‘c’ then becomes a function of the universe’s expansion and is invariable

#### Greenlight

• ‘c’ then becomes a function of the universe’s expansion and is invariable
Cosmologist say that time ran slower at the beginning due to time dilation. since speed is a function of both time and distance, 'c' is certainly a function of the universe's expansion.

#### Atlan0001

Cosmologist say that time ran slower at the beginning due to time dilation. since speed is a function of both time and distance, 'c' is certainly a function of the universe's expansion.
It is invariable but no function of universe expansion. It doesn't stretch. It has no tension. It is single-sided 2-dimensional frame (photo-frames) emitted / emergent in and as series of frames depthless in single frame. It accumulates breadth of single frame (flatland) from other frames but no depth of any single frame whatsoever. The frame series is all too easily blown and broken.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Hmmm! I've recited more than once the holographic quality of observable universes, every observable universe, before. The infinity of crossings, of crossroads, the omni-directional pass through, of facing light throughout every observable universe. Light has no rear facing to it, no back to it whatsoever.

There is nothing so blind, so unscientific as people who talk of stern chasing, who talk of catching or trying to catch something, or being unable to catch something, that doesn't exist, frames that have no rear to them, in the first place to be chased or caught up too. a frame, frames, that have front facing only. That their only rear facing is the front facing of a different frame advancing in pass through, "in passing" into the traveler's face or instrumentation from an opposed frontal direction.

Looking in a rearview mirror, looking to the rear, the traveler observes more current history receding into evermore distant period history. It is the light that is losing ground, stretching out in curvature, over SPACETIME, not the traveler. No such thing exists to the traveler's front as face slams into advancing fronts, advancing frames' (photo-page) series facing. Distant period histories advancing in histories toward evermore current history before merging in some rendezvous (certain lines of universe's longitudinal lines observably closing to a 0-point merger).

Recession on the one hand, equal but opposite procession on the other hand, the obvious pivot of "equals" being speed of light constant 'c'.

#### Curiosity killed the cat

Einsteins relativity already explains why the speed of light is a constant for all observers. I think I will stick with his version.

#### Atlan0001

Einsteins relativity already explains why the speed of light is a constant for all observers. I think I will stick with his version.
Einstein's relativity indicated a Utopian closed systematic stone Universe with two boxed-in absolutes of speed, a bedrock floor absolute of zero constant to all observers and a smash your head and body flat ceiling of the speed of light constant to all observers (a stone box of universal space). The speed o light being constant to all observers doesn't work that way . . . the ceiling of the speed of light is constant to all observers, but SPACE (not time!) and, thus, the floor of ZERO, isn't constant, isn't the same, to all observers (Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' being one microcosmic, and one macrocosmic too, indicator it isn't! || Schrodinger's function: It "is...." and it "isn't...." being another) || Warp space, black holes, white holes, wormholes, fractal zooms structure, and more (culminating in asymptotic line straight and open system universe hyperspace....), being other indicators!

SPACETIME is a holographic coordinate cartoon "simulacrum" of objective reality. "The map is not the territory!" Observation is always behind the time of unobserved, unobservable, objective reality . . . which SPACETIME itself places in the future light cone (future history and/or histories (uncertain history)).

Last edited:

#### ImmortalMelvz

I believe Einstein's Theory is now a Law because many facts have proven it is true!

Hardcrunchyscience

#### Classical Motion

The FEW things that Einstein got right are completely ignored, and the things that he got wrong are now dogma. And has kept us stupid for over a hundred years.

And the thing you ignore provides a simple explanation for the measurements that puzzle you.

Light is not a wave......it is discreet and intermittent, and it's velocity has never been measured.

Only it's bounce has been measured. And because all objects are in motion, the interaction duration is modulated. It is modulated with the change in distance between emissions.

Light is space width(or length) modulated. Giving the illusion.....that space is expanding. Only the space and duration BETWEEN emissions, changes. The length and duration of the emission is constant.

And for some reason, men of science can not see this. Just like they can't see that planetary orbits are a one turn closed helix.............not an elliptic. Therefore NONE of our gravity theories can explain a planetary orbit.

Both light and gravity come from mass. And we have a theory for light and gravity, but no theory for mass. How exactly does that work? We have a theory for fruit, but not the tree it comes from.

#### Atlan0001

Try to think multi-dimensionally! "The map is not the territory!" And the more distant, thus the faster, the territory is, the more offset from the map the territory is!

The faster, the more offset, the more distant the territory.

The more offset, the more distant, the faster the territory.

SPACETIME is a map of the territory, and 'c' is a constant and thus the the light-time a past history in the past light cone the instant of single-sided 2-dimensional photo-frame (potentially in series of numbered flip-page-frames) emission. The photo flip-page-frame of history, of subjective relativity, travels at the speed of light 'c', the speed of spontaneously concurrent REALTIME 'c', into the past light cone, while the object reality is equally but oppositely traveling into, effectively, future history . . . the future light cone . . . to distant observers trying to observe, a travel into the un-observed, un-observable, "dark" universe (while they, the observers, at-a-distance, wait observation, wait time, of emitted history traveling across whatever the distances at the speed of light 'c'.

Meanwhile, the farther into the future light cone, into future history, into the un-observed and un-observable dark universe, the objectively real traveler travels if traveling away from the observer. Even oncoming to the observer, the objectively real travelers will outrun the subjectively relative travelers until the instant of meeting rendezvous with objectively real observers. The difference, the expansion or contraction of the geometric universe involved, whether gaining or closing in distance (in offset), is faster than the speed of light.

Last edited:

#### Curiosity killed the cat

The FEW things that Einstein got right are completely ignored, and the things that he got wrong are now dogma. And has kept us stupid for over a hundred years.

And the thing you ignore provides a simple explanation for the measurements that puzzle you.

Light is not a wave......it is discreet and intermittent, and it's velocity has never been measured.

Only it's bounce has been measured. And because all objects are in motion, the interaction duration is modulated. It is modulated with the change in distance between emissions.

Light is space width(or length) modulated. Giving the illusion.....that space is expanding. Only the space and duration BETWEEN emissions, changes. The length and duration of the emission is constant.

And for some reason, men of science can not see this. Just like they can't see that planetary orbits are a one turn closed helix.............not an elliptic. Therefore NONE of our gravity theories can explain a planetary orbit.

Both light and gravity come from mass. And we have a theory for light and gravity, but no theory for mass. How exactly does that work? We have a theory for fruit, but not the tree it comes from.
Try to think multi-dimensionally! "The map is not the territory!" And t
he more distant, thus the faster, the territory is, the more offset from the map the territory is!

The faster, the more offset, the more distant the territory.

The more offset, the more distant, the faster the territory.

SPACETIME is a map of the territory, and 'c' is a constant and thus the the light-time a past history in the past light cone the instant of single-sided 2-dimensional photo-frame (potentially in series of numbered flip-page-frames) emission. The photo flip-page-frame of history, of subjective relativity, travels at the speed of light 'c', the speed of spontaneously concurrent REALTIME 'c', into the past light cone, while the object reality is equally but oppositely traveling into, effectively, future history . . . the future light cone . . . to distant observers trying to observe, a travel into the un-observed, un-observable, "dark" universe (while they, the observers, at-a-distance, wait observation, wait time, of emitted history traveling across whatever the distances at the speed of light 'c'.

Meanwhile, the farther into the future light cone, into future history, into the un-observed and un-observable dark universe, the objectively real traveler travels if traveling away from the observer. Even oncoming to the observer, the objectively real travelers will outrun the subjectively relative travelers until the instant of meeting rendezvous with objectively real observers. The difference, the expansion or contraction of the geometric universe involved, whether gaining or closing in distance (in offset), is faster than the speed of light.
Both light and gravity come from mass. And we have a theory for light and gravity, but no theory for mass. How exactly does that work? We have a theory for fruit, but not the tree it comes from.
Maybe we should revisit Le' Sages version of gravitation, If you deleted the repulsive force exerted by the Ultra mundane corpuscles he theorised, and replaced those with the repulsive force we call dark energy, you would get the same effect. its really just a matter of semantics, as it doesn't contradict Einsteins curvature of space-time theory, It's simply a variation on the theme. (It would seem that once again, Einstein was right, even when he was wrong.) As a bonus, if Le'sages theory is amended it could also answer the mass problem.

There are only a couple of points that need clearing up, with one of them being dark energy, I can only surmise that this relativistic phenomenon is an effect of the flow of time. both minkowski and Einstein pointed out that space and time are a single phenomenon.

#### Classical Motion

I believe that Einstein was greatly mis-understood, even by himself possibly.

To me, Einstein did NOT describe physical motion. He tried to describe the observation and measurement of it. What we see and measure, changes, with our motion and orientation.

The physical dynamic observed........does not. Some scientists insist it does.

The effect of velocity and angle of measurement, of a motion, was known decades before Einstein. Common relativity. Ampere for angle and Weber ratio-ed angle with velocity.

At that time understanding the motion was the goal. Today, it's understanding the different measurements of the same motion. And dreaming up unneeded solutions......for common relativity.

Adding new physics to far light and far mass will never end with this intellect. I think that we will continue to look farther. Perhaps with more illusions. "FAR" goes both ways.......far in and far out.

#### Curiosity killed the cat

The dark energy problem is a prime example... space-time is as Minkowski and Einstein told us, a single phenomenon . this is made blindingly obvious when we use the term light-year, or light-second...
Ask yourself. Is a light year a temporal distance, or a linear distance? The answer is... Both! In other words time and distance have interchangeable values

Maybe we should re-visit Le'sages theory of gravitation. If we reject that the expansive force he proposed was an effect of particles known as ultramundane corpuscles, and replace those particles with something we currently call dark energy, it immediately lends credence to Le'sages theory. It also meshes nicely with Einsteins theory of gravitation by explaining how spacetime is curved by matter and as an added bonus what gives matter its mass. A big plus is that it also relegates dark matter to the depths of la la land, where it rightfully belongs.

With any cause which has an effect on the scale of space-time, that effect will be proportionate in both the time and distance dimensions. In other words, If space is stretched or compressed, so too is time, and vice versa.

time and space are merely seperations which are bound in an unbreakable continuum. One of these two phenomena has a property, and it is seemingly time, because by its very nature time progresses. A single dimension of time can be represented as a straight line and the progression of time would be shown as a lengthening of that line. if the timeline expands so too must the three spacial (distance) dimensions . Voila! " Go dark energy Go." the expansion of the universe.

Gibsense

#### Gibsense

"The dark energy problem is a prime example... space-time is as Minkowski and Einstein told us, a single phenomenon . this is made blindingly obvious when we use the term light-year, or light-second...
Ask yourself. Is a light year a temporal distance, or a linear distance? The answer is... Both! In other words time and distance have interchangeable value

Exactly, Curiosity Killed the Cat, OOPs I have posted using the wrong method here

#### Curiosity killed the cat

"The dark energy problem is a prime example... space-time is as Minkowski and Einstein told us, a single phenomenon . this is made blindingly obvious when we use the term light-year, or light-second...
Ask yourself. Is a light year a temporal distance, or a linear distance? The answer is... Both! In other words time and distance have interchangeable value

Exactly, Curiosity Killed the Cat, OOPs I have posted using the wrong method here
not to worry ... I'm quite sure that we will be able to rectify this glitch and return to the matter under discussion.

#### Atlan0001

Sigh...

The constant of the 0-1-dimensional, flat-walled Big Bang spontaneous universe, Planck universe spontaneity, spontaneous REALTIME, spontaneously emitted single-sided 2-dimensional light-time photo-frame(s) of SPACETIME, altogether represent something that does exist regardless of how many times overlooked or simply dismissed! Instantaneousness (Instantaneity)! "Endless Frontier"!

The only thing wrong with the idea of Big Bang / Planck spontaneity is the picture of "once-upon-a-time"! It's there every time we turn on a light or think time in motion to past histories through ever current space . . . thus everything else in motion on that leading line to everywhere and nowhere at all (Einstein's "mind's eye trip" to and through Hawking's "Grand Central Station").

"Time in motion to past histories through ever current/concurrent space...." If both space and time moved at once together as one and the same entity (as the entirety of universe), the resulting singularity would freeze all motion solid eternally. Think about it!

Geez! It does freeze solid in motion! Except that is an asymptotic line of verse . . . a verse in separate superposition.

#### Gibsense

Sigh...

The constant of the 0-1-dimensional, flat-walled Big Bang spontaneous universe, Planck universe spontaneity, spontaneous REALTIME, spontaneously emitted single-sided 2-dimensional light-time photo-frame(s) of SPACETIME, altogether represent something that does exist regardless of how many times overlooked or simply dismissed! Instantaneousness (Instantaneity)! "Endless Frontier"!

The only thing wrong with the idea of Big Bang / Planck spontaneity is the picture of "once-upon-a-time"! It's there every time we turn on a light or think time in motion to past histories through ever current space . . . thus everything else in motion on that leading line to everywhere and nowhere at all (Einstein's "mind's eye trip" to and through Hawking's "Grand Central Station").

"Time in motion to past histories through ever current/concurrent space...." If both space and time moved at once together as one and the same entity (as the entirety of universe), the resulting singularity would freeze all motion solid eternally. Think about it!

Geez! It does freeze solid in motion! Except that is an asymptotic line of verse . . . a verse in separate superposition.
If there were a separate "time effect, er process" operating perpendicular to, er 'normal time' would this change your opinion?

#### Atlan0001

If there were a separate "time effect, er process" operating perpendicular to, er 'normal time' would this change your opinion?
No need, Gibsense. I have Einstein's "mind's trip to the speed of light" and Hawking's description of the "Grand Central Station of the Universe" with single-digit, single-hand, frozen time clock hanging over the dead center of that Grand Central Station of Universe. An eternally permanent fixture, a constant, of physics and cosmology . . . and 'Horizon'..

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

The picture at the constant of the speed of light gets behind the times over any distance (to be observed as, and taken to be, slowing down in time). The larger the distance the greater grows the SPACETIME curvature, the greater the speed of separation between reality on the spot and relativity to an observer at distance, the farther behind the times of REALTIME travelers, REALTIME current events, the REALTIME observers, is the SPACETIME-relative picture.

Unfortunately there is flat refusal to try to calculate the separation between Alpha-Centauri (REALTIME) and Alpha Centauri (SPACETIME) . . . between Andromeda (REALTIME) and Andromeda (SPACETIME) . . . between SPACE (REALTIME) at 14-billion x 6-trillion miles distance and SPACETIME at 14-billion light years, 14-billion years, away (again SPACETIME).

Unfortunately there is flat refusal to try to calculate the expanding separation between an un-observable traveler (REALTIME) going away more than a light second away from an observer (REALTIME) and a traveler -- the same traveler -- observed to be one light second away (SPACETIME) from an observer (REALTIME). It does not suit the SPACETIME absolutist to deal in two travelers, one real (REALTIME), one relative (SPACETIME), rather than a very lazy just one (SPACETIME).

Unfortunately there is flat refusal to try to calculate the contracting separation between an un-observable traveler (REALTIME) oncoming less than a light second away from an observer (REALTIME) and a traveler -- the same traveler -- observed to be one light second away (SPACETIME) from an observer (REALTIME). It does not suit the SPACETIME absolutist....

It does not suit lazy physics to deal in two universes, the observable SPACETIME and the dark un-observable REALTIME, rather than just one, the observable SPACETIME.

(1. The observable SPACETIME universe: Past light cone / past histories.)
(2. The dark un-observable REALTIME universe: Future light cone / future histories.)

Last edited:

#### ImmortalMelvz

In My knowledge Space & Time are directly proportional to their expansion rate. Can you please explain these...

#### Gibsense

Just to clarify something. Nothing I have suggested in any of my posts contradicts Relativity. If anyone thinks it does then please discuss/explain why you think so.

#### Spacetime Interval: The spacetime interval is a combination of distance and time that is invariant.​

However, it is really easy and simple to understand by drawing a simple diagram I will do my best to describe -

• Draw a circle.
• We will look at one quadrant (say top left one)
• label the verticle side of the quadrant "Time"
• label the horizontal of the quadrant "Distance"
• Pretend you have a clock hand that starts at quarter-to and rotates to 12 o'clock
• As the clock hand rotates it moves from the horizontal representing the speed of light (distance but no time reading on the vertical) to no distance but time passing (at - as if a clock) noon
• At all positions in-between the relationship between time and distance (speed) can be read off on the vertical side (time) or the horizontal side (distance).
• By Pythagoras's application the time dilation and the distance dilation can be established for any speed (draw the diagram)
I suspect though that this does not answer your question so I'll take a guess and try some more but please be aware that the following are my thoughts/ideas/extension and probably correct but treat them cautiously ( I have no verification except the idea expressed describing the Hubble constant).
• Re-draw the circle
• let us say the centre of it represents any instant in time
• Let's also pretend that we are away from any gravitation binding us
• In the case of the expansion of space (as per the expansion of the universe) each second will show up (provide) one light second as a sphere radius.
• My assertion then is that because the universe is around 13.8 billion years (of time) the distance expanded must be a radius of 13.8 light years (distance) which calculates a Hubble Constant of 71 ish for using CBM or 67 for using the Hubble Telscope.
If I am unclear somewhere let me know. Please bear in mind that the last 5 bullet points above are unsupported by anyone anywhere except me and no one anywhere has engaged to dispute them except for years ago when I expressed them to someone who knew not a lot anyway!!

#### ImmortalMelvz

The FEW things that Einstein got right are completely ignored, and the things that he got wrong are now dogma. And has kept us stupid for over a hundred years.

And the thing you ignore provides a simple explanation for the measurements that puzzle you.

Light is not a wave......it is discreet and intermittent, and it's velocity has never been measured.

Only it's bounce has been measured. And because all objects are in motion, the interaction duration is modulated. It is modulated with the change in distance between emissions.

Light is space width(or length) modulated. Giving the illusion.....that space is expanding. Only the space and duration BETWEEN emissions, changes. The length and duration of the emission is constant.

And for some reason, men of science can not see this. Just like they can't see that planetary orbits are a one turn closed helix.............not an elliptic. Therefore NONE of our gravity theories can explain a planetary orbit.

Both light and gravity come from mass. And we have a theory for light and gravity, but no theory for mass. How exactly does that work? We have a theory for fruit, but not the tree it comes from.
You have a sense of intelligence in your opinion, however, to see is to believe so, I have to see first the reality of your statements.

#### Atlan0001

Acceleration and deceleration controls whether distance is actually what you believe it is. The constant of the speed of light, (+/-)300,000kps, is constant to "rest's" '0'kps ((+)-->|0|<--(-)), Einstein's destination point of his mind's eye trip, and the time on the clock of Hawking's "Grand Central Station of Universe" . . . the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck/Big Bang (superposition) 'Mirror Horizon' of all of an infinity of horizon universes (aka "observable').

Acceleration and deceleration adjust the SPACE (the hyperspace expanse) of the universe. Thus, 0-point invariant constant '0kps' (thus, invariant constant (+/-)300,000kps) floats, apparently, and fractally zooms in direction and magnitude of SPACE. At radial 0-point universe it is always a meeting light's coordinate-point crossroads, dead quantum '0'-point point-singularity, as both Einstein and Hawking 'pointed' out (''zeroed' in upon')!

Last edited:
ImmortalMelvz

#### Classical Motion

We all have the same sight but we all have different ways of seeing. Some are mechanical, some electric, some chemical, some physical and some are self imagination, limiting and restrictive, like mathematics.

If this universe has to follow man's math, then man will only look in. To Himself. His greatest obsession.

Maybe I could offer some new sight if I knew how you see. What do you study and ponder?

ImmortalMelvz

#### Gibsense

We all have the same sight but we all have different ways of seeing. Some are mechanical, some electric, some chemical, some physical and some are self imagination, limiting and restrictive, like mathematics.

If this universe has to follow man's math, then man will only look in. To Himself. His greatest obsession.

Maybe I could offer some new sight if I knew how you see. What do you study and ponder?
The idea is that time is only our and the universe's (forced) progression along a dimension at 90 degrees to our 3d volume. "Forced" by the Quantum influence of a star concealed in a black hole (at or near the singularity) giving rise to a white hole that is our universe. NB the Black hole event horizon is not the boundary of the collapsed star; it is the boundary where time points inward (compressing gravity). The star is at the centre.
The quantum fluctuation continues at the singularity (I venture) as the black hole feeds. This fuels the expansion of a white hole (us & ours) where time points outwards rather than in a black hole where time points inwards.
And, that special relativity can be applied to describe the whole universe - maybe another topic !!

ImmortalMelvz

#### ImmortalMelvz

We all have the same sight but we all have different ways of seeing. Some are mechanical, some electric, some chemical, some physical and some are self imagination, limiting and restrictive, like mathematics.

If this universe has to follow man's math, then man will only look in. To Himself. His greatest obsession.

Maybe I could offer some new sight if I knew how you see. What do you study and ponder?
I'm reading the book To Infinity and Beyond by Neil deGrasse Tyson and I found it very interesting. It gives Me an understanding of the Cosmos and ideas are coming to My mind & I like it to put into reality.

Gibsense

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
10K