<p>A lot of interesting points and yes we are getting bogged down. Just to reset back to the original line of thinking I think most people agreed that if c = 1m/s then all of our measurements of time and space would also change such that we continue to percieve c = 300000 m/s because what is a meter and what is a second would also change. As the universe expands or contracts our laws of physics would hold true and we would perceive c to be constant even though relative to some outside point of view things look like they are changing ( although size, time and mass etc only have meaning within our universe). So to us that change is irrelevant and perhaps impossible to prove. I think this does however lead to the conclusion that all energy and matter IS spacetime and spacetime IS energy and matter. What I mean is if some outside observer measured the size of the universe as say 1 meter across and saw the earth as a little speck of dust and then expanded the universe to a few trillion miles and looked at the earth again, the earth would have to be proportionally bigger otherwise all kinds of local laws of physics would be broken. But again the people of earth would be oblivious to the change.</p><p>Where we go from there is another story. I think Dr. Rocket is right that ratios of time and space perhaps do not make sense because time is wrapped up into space. The time that is wrapped up in space also shouldn't be confused with our clocks which as we know tick in relativistic ways.</p>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> IF c=t , where "t" is time and "c" is the speed of light from an outside reference and s/t is the ratio of space to time, As c=0 Then t=0 also term "s" (space) would increase. Because to us s/t = s As t is constant we would only percieve a change in s <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><font size="2">You have to rethink about this. c can not be equal to t. Unit of c is meter/sec and unit of t is sec. I don't think you can ignore meter (distance or space), whichever way you try to hide it. c and t are inversely related not directly.</font></p><p><font size="2">If c=0, that makes t infinity. </font></p><p><font size="2">But I really wish c=t, things would have been much simpler.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A lot of interesting points and yes we are getting bogged down. Just to reset back to the original line of thinking I think most people agreed that if c = 1m/s then all of our measurements of time and space would also change such that we continue to percieve c = 300000 m/s because what is a meter and what is a second would also change. As the universe expands or contracts our laws of physics would hold true and we would perceive c to be constant even though relative to some outside point of view things look like they are changing ( although size, time and mass etc only have meaning within our universe). So to us that change is irrelevant and perhaps impossible to prove. I think this does however lead to the conclusion that all energy and matter IS spacetime and spacetime IS energy and matter. What I mean is if some outside observer measured the size of the universe as say 1 meter across and saw the earth as a little speck of dust and then expanded the universe to a few trillion miles and looked at the earth again, the earth would have to be proportionally bigger otherwise all kinds of local laws of physics would be broken. But again the people of earth would be oblivious to the change.Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Are you saying that if the speed of light slowed then matter would shrink do to the Lorentz transformation, we would see no change for c but the universe would seem to be expanding? <br /></font></p>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have to rethink about this. c can not be equal to t. Unit of c is meter/sec and unit of t is sec. I don't think you can ignore meter (distance or space), whichever way you try to hide it. c and t are inversely related not directly.If c=0, that makes t infinity. But I really wish c=t, things would have been much simpler. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">and the flow of time, t prime I suppose? always has a value that varies throughout the universe. Goodness gracious, it really is chaos, I see why time can flow backward spontaneously so easily in the quantum realm. </font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you saying that if the speed of light slowed then matter would shrink do to the Lorentz transformation, we would see no change for c but the universe would seem to be expanding? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p> Ummmm. (Like why06 I keep second guesing what I'm saying). I think what I'm saying is that the size of the universe, to us, is irrelevant. c will always be the same because our units of measure (in this case meter and second) would scale appropriately in an expanded or contracted universe. So we would be none the wiser and would never be able to tell any difference unless we were able to somehow step out side of the univerwse and observe a change. If we were somehow able to take a meter stick back in time a billion years and somehow manage to keep its length constant (relative to today) we might say "hey a meter is not as long as it is a billion years in the future". If only dimensional sizes like meters changed then everything would be different. Thankfully we would find that everything else (seconds, kg, forces of gravity, ... ) scaled appropriately and all our trusted equations still worked and c had the same value. Since we measure force sometimes in kgm/s2 then mass, distance and time would all have to change so that energy is conserved and again of course we would be oblivious to that change. By this logic the universe could be oscillating at break neck speed and we would not know and in fact it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to us.</p><p>So, to a certain extent, who cares, this whole little thought experiment proves nothing other than the laws of physics don't change which onemug said a long time ago. But it does lead me to believe that we don't live IN spacetime, we ARE spacetime. If spacetime expands then so do we, but we just don't know it. This then somehow leads to decelerated time, gravity and inertia and the implosion of my brain.</p>
But could the expansion of the universe be described as a change in c with the universe staying the same size and everything in it shrinking due to Lorentz transformations?
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A lot of interesting points and yes we are getting bogged down. Just to reset back to the original line of thinking I think most people agreed that if c = 1m/s then all of our measurements of time and space would also change such that we continue to percieve c = 300000 m/s because what is a meter and what is a second would also change....Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>I see no reason to accept that assertion. This is not a democracy, and you don't resolve scientific questions by a vote. Does anyone have any proof for this assertion ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have to rethink about this. c can not be equal to t. Unit of c is meter/sec and unit of t is sec. I don't think you can ignore meter (distance or space), whichever way you try to hide it. c and t are inversely related not directly.If c=0, that makes t infinity. But I really wish c=t, things would have been much simpler. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Yes I did say t = c. </p><p>What does that mean though. Its pointless to define time with a unit of time itself. Its like defining space in terms of meters and feet. Its means nothing. If you say t = infinity what does that mean. How will it matter if time will continue to tick along at the same pace from my reference point. Even if c did equal 0 I would still percieve it at 300,000 km/s . So in my universe c could equal zero from an outside perspective, it would mean nothing. time would continue to tick on at the same pace. However there would not be enough time for me to go to a galaxy outside of say "the expansion limit" So space would keep accelerating and expanding.</p><p>We dont have a ratio for time:<strong> t=?/? </strong></p><p>All I know is that from an outside perspective time must continue to move at the same pace. So in this other universe they would not think that perhaps they are moving faster than our "c" so if time of universe1 = time of universe to then:<strong> t1 = t2 </strong></p><p>If the times are the same then the percieved ratio of a distance of space over the percieved c must be the same: <strong>s/c = s/c</strong></p><p><strong>m/m/s = m/m/s </strong>Now the distance mearures can cancel out and <strong>m/s = s </strong></p><p>Now <strong>c = t </strong></p><p>But this means nothing. theres something wrong with this. Somehow just because time may be percieved to be equal from each perspective does not mean they're equal. Since everything is relative from our perspective the only real variable that can be translated across different universes mathematically is "c" itself and that the accelerating expansion of space is infact the decrease of speed "c". Now if c equaled c into other universes and since c is a measurement of space over time then:</p><p><strong>c = c</strong> Then <strong>s/t = s/t</strong> Therefore if the times are differrent space will compensate to for the variations in time. However since we have a zero dimensional perspective of time <strong>s/t = s</strong> or we would simply detect a change in space. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see no reason to accept that assertion. This is not a democracy, and you don't resolve scientific questions by a vote. Does anyone have any proof for this assertion ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Yes, I think this could be true. If light "slowed down" special relativity would still apply. You wouldn't see any change in the speed of light because your yard stick would shrink. It would shrink in every direction light traveled instead of just in a single direction. Your clock would slow down. All you would notice is the universe getting allot bigger. How could this possibly be wrong?
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I think this could be true. If light "slowed down" special relativity would still apply. You wouldn't see any change in the speed of light because your yard stick would shrink. It would shrink in every direction light traveled instead of just in a single direction. Your clock would slow down. All you would notice is the universe getting allot bigger. How could this possibly be wrong? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>The Lorentz transformation would apply with whatver the value of c that might be. But that says nothing whatever about shrinking yard sticks or slowing clocks. The transformation applies to relationships between reference frames in uniform motion with respect to one another and says nothing about what is going on in a single reference frame. And length contraction via the Lorentz transformation occurs only in the axis along which one has relative motion, there is nothing in it about shrinking in evrey direction that light travels. </p><p>I don't see how your assertion could possibly be right.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /> Posted by why06</DIV><br /><p><font color="#ff0000">We dont have a ratio for time:<strong> t=?/? </strong></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">All I know is that from an outside perspective time must continue to move at the same pace. So in this other universe they would not think that perhaps they are moving faster than our "c" so if time of universe1 = time of universe to then:<strong> t1 = t2 </strong></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">If the times are the same then the percieved ratio of a distance of space over the percieved c must be the same: <strong>s/c = s/c</strong></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>m/m/s = m/m/s </strong>Now the distance mearures can cancel out and <strong>m/s = s </strong></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Now </font><strong><font color="#ff0000">c = t </font><br /></strong></p><font size="2">I give up. Sorry. It's good to try to find speed of time. But I don't think that's possible with current definition of speed, you need to change the definition of speed=space/time to something else. May be instead of speed=space/time to speed=time/space. This may fit well with our another notion that 'time is actually a change'.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#003366"> But this means nothing. theres something wrong with this. Somehow just because time may be percieved to be equal from each perspective does not mean they're equal. Since everything is relative from our perspective the only real variable that can be translated across different universes mathematically is "c" itself and that the accelerating expansion of space is infact the decrease of speed "c".</font> <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">and if c is decreased here, light from universe 2 is locally tachonic?</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We dont have a ratio for time: t=?/? All I know is that from an outside perspective time must continue to move at the same pace. So in this other universe they would not think that perhaps they are moving faster than our "c" so if time of universe1 = time of universe to then: t1 = t2 If the times are the same then the percieved ratio of a distance of space over the percieved c must be the same: s/c = s/cm/m/s = m/m/s Now the distance mearures can cancel out and m/s = s Now c = t I give up. Sorry. It's good to try to find speed of time. But I don't think that's possible with current definition of speed, you need to change the definition of speed=space/time to something else. May be instead of speed=space/time to speed=time/space. This may fit well with our another notion that 'time is actually a change'. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Thats the problem. I can see that c has some relation to time other than simply speed. Some kind of relation that can be translated across local perspectives, but c = s/t is does not work. Do you think light could be a wave. and time is an ether? I thought some experiment disproved the possibility of an ether, but what if light was a time wave. Lol! That sounds Star Trek-ish! </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thats the problem. I can see that c has some relation to time other than simply speed. Some kind of relation that can be translated across local perspectives, but c = s/t is does not work. Do you think light could be a wave. and time is an ether? I thought some experiment disproved the possibility of an ether, but what if light was a time wave. Lol! That sounds Star Trek-ish! <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">' Specifically, a second was defined as <em>the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields</em>. ' </font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">(quote from this nice reference article: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html 
</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Lorentz transformation would apply with whatver the value of c that might be. But that says nothing whatever about shrinking yard sticks or slowing clocks. The transformation applies to relationships between reference frames in uniform motion with respect to one another and says nothing about what is going on in a single reference frame. And length contraction via the Lorentz transformation occurs only in the axis along which one has relative motion, there is nothing in it about shrinking in evrey direction that light travels. I don't see how your assertion could possibly be right. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What about what I asked about light being able to escape earths gravity. If the speed of light changed to 1 m/s and earths escape velocity remained 11.2 km/s would light still be able to leave the earth? </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about what I asked about light being able to escape earths gravity. If the speed of light changed to 1 m/s and earths escape velocity remained 11.2 km/s would light still be able to leave the earth? <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Well you have to understand that gravity itself moves at the speed of light. Anyway light is not affected directly by gravity since it has no mass. It is only affected by the curvature of space-time. So yes light would still be able to leave Earth the same way it does right now I would assume. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well you have to understand that gravity itself moves at the speed of light. Anyway light is not affected directly by gravity since it has no mass. It is only affected by the curvature of space-time. So yes light would still be able to leave Earth the same way it does right now I would assume. <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br />I thought escape velocity did apply to light and black holes. The Reverend John Michell in 1783 proposed an object with so much mass that it's escape velocity would be faster than the speed of light. I suppose general relativity makes it more complicated than just that.
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about what I asked about light being able to escape earths gravity. If the speed of light changed to 1 m/s and earths escape velocity remained 11.2 km/s would light still be able to leave the earth? <br />Posted by kg</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I'm somewhat lost on the propositions, but I think the model in the making has everything changing to scale as well, such that consciousness would not perceive the model as being different from the situation now. If earth's gravity was relatively high and c was 1 m/s it would be a black hole. If c alone changed to 1 m/s sports would be impossible, balls would arrive before you could see them.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well you have to understand that gravity itself moves at the speed of light. Anyway light is not affected directly by gravity since it has no mass. It is only affected by the curvature of space-time. So yes light would still be able to leave Earth the same way it does right now I would assume. <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">why06, I don't think they have confirmed the speed of gravity yet, but essentially they refer to the spacetime distortion wave as a gravity wave, in such situation they then measure the distortion with laser lights.</font></p><p><font size="2">invitation to video on gravity waves: http://uk.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=RzZgFKoIfQI&feature=related</font></p><p><font size="2">and to the upcoming 'Lisa' lab spacecraft: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWwWcA_Hgw&feature=related</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well you have to understand that gravity itself moves at the speed of light. Anyway light is not affected directly by gravity since it has no mass. It is only affected by the curvature of space-time. So yes light would still be able to leave Earth the same way it does right now I would assume. <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>The curvature of space-time and gravity are the same thing in general relativity and both affect light. Light has energy, and energy and mass are the same thing (that is one implication of E=Mc^2). John Archibald Wheeler stiudied theoretical objects called geons that are gravitational stable structures composed solely of light, and the light itself creates the necessary gravitational field (aka curvature of space-time). In any case light is most certainly directly affected by gravity. </p><p>You are correct in that gravity waves are predicted to move at the speed of light. Gravity waves have not yet been directly detected but there is good evidence for them They are predicted by general relativity. There are some star systems that appear to be losing energy in a manner consistent with the emission of gravity waves.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The curvature of space-time and gravity are the same thing in general relativity and both affect light. Light has energy, and energy and mass are the same thing (that is one implication of E=Mc^2). John Archibald Wheeler stiudied theoretical objects called geons that are gravitational stable structures composed solely of light, and the light itself creates the necessary gravitational field (aka curvature of space-time). In any case light is most certainly directly affected by gravity. You are correct in that gravity waves are predicted to move at the speed of light. Gravity waves have not yet been directly detected but there is good evidence for them They are predicted by general relativity. There are some star systems that appear to be losing energy in a manner consistent with the emission of gravity waves. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I was always unsure of what a gravity wave would be? I assumed it was just the speed of space or something like that. You know like the speed of sound. And the speed of light would be the fastest that manifold of space time could alter. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was always unsure of what a gravity wave would be? I assumed it was just the speed of space or something like that. You know like the speed of sound. And the speed of light would be the fastest that manifold of space time could alter. <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Think of it as a propagating ripple in space-time that changes the curvature which is gravity, like a wave propagating through water. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are some star systems that appear to be losing energy in a manner consistent with the emission of gravity waves. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_1913%2B16</p><p>The Hulse/Taylor binary pulsar (PSR 1913 + 1606) for which they won they won the Nobel.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was always unsure of what a gravity wave would be? I assumed it was just the speed of space or something like that. You know like the speed of sound. And the speed of light would be the fastest that manifold of space time could alter. <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">It's great to have you brainstorming out loud, I'm giving the thought of tachyons some more food. </font></p><p><font size="2">I'm not sure which manifold you refer to. You mean a quantity of spacetime undergoing gravtiatational distortion, such as the wire mesh that the man was stretching and compressing at 90 degrees?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's great to have you brainstorming out loud, I'm giving the thought of tachyons some more food. I'm not sure which manifold you refer to. You mean a quantity of spacetime undergoing gravtiatational distortion, such as the wire mesh that the man was stretching and compressing at 90 degrees? <br /> Posted by john1r</DIV></p><p>I rarely think about things all the way through before I post them. Not neccessarily a good trait. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" /> I tend to edit after though...</p><p> </p><p>Anyway I'm a little confused with this whole interferometer thing. It seems this pulsing of the light could be caused by something much more simple.</p><p><strong>Ex:</strong> <em>The heating of the room. Vibrations in the mirror. An alteration in the light from some of it bouncing off the mirror and the other part going </em><em>through the glass. It just seems as if there is room for too much experimental error. To calculate the frequency of four different beams of light. </em></p><p> However that is not the main reason Im turned off of this idea. It would seem to me that gravity could only be measured in large macroscopic alterations, as the microscopic alterings of spacetime (aka. a rock on the other side of the planet) seem rather insignificant. Not only that, but these differences would be chaotic not the orderly pattern of data these researchers at LIGO and LISA (i think) Are trying to coax out.<strong>I'm just not a fan of battling against the butterfly</strong>. No intrument can ever be built to the degree to overcome chaos and this experiment unfortunately is subject to chaos. I would even go as far to say it is most likely a waste of money. Because the experiment will undoubtedly fail or either fail to produce results significantly more accurate then a lab model. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 174
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
FAA creating new committee to update launch regulations
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
-
SpaceX rolls Starship Flight 6 Super Heavy rocket to pad ahead of Nov. 18 launch (photos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
NASA rockets seed artificial clouds below glowing auroras in Norway (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram