Is the speed of light absolute? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14780130
A bit slow on PoFo today and I have some free time on my hands. So I will start another thread about the speed of light.

One of my hobbies is theoretical science. I won't go as far as to say I am an expert on the subject but time and again will play around with the equations and look at the outcome. And I found something out that was very interesting a few years ago. If the speed of light is not absolute, you can equate for the missing gravity in the universe without dark matter/energy. Whether my maths is correct or not, I don't know. And I am definitely not confident enough to publish. After all, I am an amateur on the subject and I am likely to have made many mistakes. But putting that to one side, could the speed of light be different depending on where you are in the universe?

A few things to consider that could back my notion up. Firstly, the amount of energy depends on the speed of light. Mass has atomic energy. The greater the speed of light, the greater the energy in an atom and the stronger its mass. More mass equates to more gravity. So this could explain missing gravity. Second, galaxies move away from each other. Or so it appears. If the speed of light is different depending on where you are in space, this could in fact be an optical illusion. If we accept the inflation theory, space time might be inflating to a different rate to time and the speed of light so things look like they are moving away from each other. Thirdly blackholes. We all know they 'suck in' light. But what if they don't. What if all they do is prevent the light from reaching our planet by slowing light down. So to us it would appear to be an area in space that has no light. But this could be explained by the speed of light changing in the blackholes space time. I know what I have written in complex and doesn't make sense. And as I have said, is probably wrong. But do you think the speed of light is absolute?
#14780155
Ok, 'm a probably a bit brain dead now because its sunday and since no work i have to concentrate as much as possible on smoking, drinking, playing video games and trying to get sex. So it wont be as much constructed as it should be. But nevertheless, 'll try to add a little commentary.

If the speed of light is not absolute, you can equate for the missing gravity in the universe without dark matter/energy

Its probably not, because the margin keeps getting larger and larger. But nevertheless, can you show us your work, if you're comfortable with doing so ? It would be fun to debate equations and math with other members since many here are engineers and in scientific fields. Though so far i haven't found or came across a single debate that goes into mathematical details. So it could be a change.

But putting that to one side, could the speed of light be different depending on where you are in the universe?

Highly unlikely, as the speed of light is pretty much what it is because of the nature of spacetime and due to causality. Which means that for the speed of light to be a variable, spacetime and thus the entire universe needs to be in changing state.

Firstly, the amount of energy depends on the speed of light. Mass has atomic energy. The greater the speed of light, the greater the energy in an atom and the stronger its mass. More mass equates to more gravity. So this could explain missing gravity.

Sure, if taken alone this could be the case. However this approach fails to take into account other factors in play, mainly the factors that makes the speed of light what it is.

Second, galaxies move away from each other. Or so it appears. If the speed of light is different depending on where you are in space, this could in fact be an optical illusion. If we accept the inflation theory, space time might be inflating to a different rate to time and the speed of light so things look like they are moving away from each other.


Galaxies are not strictly moving away from each other actually, some orbit each other and some move towards each other.
For those that appears to be moving away from each other, its actually space between them expanding not them particularly moving away from each other.
The reason that makes some move towards each other and others away from eachother is because inflation is not the only force in play.


Thirdly blackholes. We all know they 'suck in' light. But what if they don't. What if all they do is prevent the light from reaching our planet by slowing light down. So to us it would appear to be an area in space that has no light. But this could be explained by the speed of light changing in the blackholes space time.


Blackholes are a case where mass reaches a critical point that the gravity it projects makes escape velocity larger than the speed of light.
It doesn't necissarly "sucks" in light but rather anything that goes into the event horizon is simply trapped due to the mostly unreachable escape velocity.

Blackholes, in a way, do not exist within spacetime. Spacetime simply deteriorate and becomes pretty much obsolete once below certain space and time intervals.
Thats why Hawking radiation for example doesn't produce a paradox as some argue. Because the speed of light limitation is within spacetime not outside of it.

We can dig further into the details behind it if you like but in the evening, because me and my wife are gonna start a Rise of Nations match online together shortly now, so.... yea. :p
#14780180
anasawad wrote:
Its probably not, because the margin keeps getting larger and larger. But nevertheless, can you show us your work, if you're comfortable with doing so ? It would be fun to debate equations and math with other members since many here are engineers and in scientific fields. Though so far i haven't found or came across a single debate that goes into mathematical details. So it could be a change.


The equations I used are known one's with addition variable to represent the speed of light. It isn't easy to write equations on here and even harder on a phone (I am never at home most of the time when on this forum). As I have said, I am probably wrong and only really started this thread to get this forum going again. Not to debate my work, which is only a hobby (and lost a few years ago when my computer went dies on me).


Highly unlikely, as the speed of light is pretty much what it is because of the nature of spacetime and due to casuality. Which means that for the speed of light to be a variable, spacetime and thus the entire universe needs to be in changing state.


Correct. Which is what I think is happening - through inflation. Space, like a balloon, is expanding differently depending on what part of spacetime you're in. Einstein equations work in our galaxy and only fall apart when observing other galaxies. Because of the vast size of space, to us the speed of light is absolute. It is only when we look out into space and other galaxies when things start acting strange. But as soon as you put a variable into equations with the speed of light changing speed, you'll be surprised how the maths equate. But that isn't to say I'm correct. Just that it is what seems to happen when I did.

Sure, if taken alone this could be the case. However this approach fails to take into account other factors in play, mainly the factors that makes the speed of light what it is.


My equations worked by the speed of light having no speed whatsoever. It is the rate the spacetime moves. And this changes where you are in space. So when we see light move, we are infact moving to it, not the other way round. Light also expands with spacetime and some addition variables that are quite complex need to be considered too. But that is a basic idea to what I have found. But again, even I'm not convinced with my finding and think they have little foundation to them. It's just to get conversation going on this thread.

Galaxies are not strictly moving away from each other actually, some orbit each other and some move towards each other.
For those that appears to be moving away from each other, its actually space between them expanding not them particularly moving away from each other.


Correct. But what if spacetime is what defines the speed of light? Then to us, things move further or closer to us. But in reality, in terms of distance of travel, things don't actually change. Because our eyes observe things with light. Again another variable to an equation.

The reason that makes some move towards each other and others away from eachother is because inflation is not the only force in play.


Perhaps

Blackholes are a case where mass reaches a critical point that the gravity it projects makes escape velocity larger than the speed of light.
It doesn't necissarly "sucks" in light but rather anything that goes into the event horizon is simply trapped due to the mostly unreachable escape velocity.


I didn't like using the term 'suck' but I try to write in a style that everyone can understand what I am talking about, not the select few. Again perhaps I am wrong. But I have a notion that a blackhole slows down spacetime to the point that light cannot escape visually out of it (as its speed is detemined from spacetime) to someone in another part of space. So if you could withstand the forces of gravity in a blackhole, if you looked out of it, the speed of everything to you in space would appear so fast it would be unreal. In other words, like what you said, light cannot escape a blackholes event horizon due to spacetimes velocity.

Blackholes, in a way, do not exist within spacetime. Spacetime simply deteriorate and becomes pretty much obsolete once below certain space and time intervals.
Thats why Hawking radiation for example doesn't produce a paradox as some argue. Because the speed of light limitation is within spacetime not outside of it.


Correct. But what if they do exist in spacetime? But because of gravity, it just slows spacetime down vastly, not halt it completely. What if gravity attracts the fabric of spacetime like it does with mass but to us the observer, we can't see a blackhole because we are expanding faster than light can expand in a blackholes spacetime. Then to us a blackhole is nothing more than a void in space.

We can dig further into the details behind it if you like but in the evening, because me and my wife are gonna start a Rise of Nations match online together shortly now, so.... yea. :p


Well like I said, I have written this thread to get the Agora forum going. It'll be nice to read what you and others think about the speed of light being absolute. I have my opinions on the matter. And I am not afraid to say even I think I am wrong.
#14780188
Pote would know if he deigns to respond.

The speed of light changing would contradict our observations and experiments of the universe however. It's more likely there is something we don't understand than that our every observation and our highly predictive theories are wrong so fundamentally.
#14780189
mikema63 wrote:
The speed of light changing would contradict our observations and experiments of the universe however. It's more likely there is something we don't understand than that our every observation and our highly predictive theories are wrong so fundamentally.


Maybe. But it is quite ironic that you write this, because it has happened once before. No one questioned Newton until Einstein came along. Could science be wrong twice?
#14780193
Newton wasn't wrong though, we understood the limitations of his theories and expounded them. They still work perfectly fine for the area of physics they describe.
#14780195
mikema63 wrote:Newton wasn't wrong though, we understood the limitations of his theories and expounded them. They still work perfectly fine for the area of physics they describe.


Newton is actually wrong. But his equations happen to be very good and adequate for us to use them. But I don't want to debate this issue. I lost a day explaining this very point once before and don't want to repeat that experience again. If you believe otherwise, then we will agree to disagree.
Last edited by B0ycey on 26 Feb 2017 15:34, edited 1 time in total.
#14780197
The speed of light is absolute. This is gospel. Now shut up!!

Seriously though, correct, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the full story of the nature of the universe. Which is understandable given the limitations of tools and measurement technologies of his time.

No no no, please debate Newton.
#14780200
Newton is actually wrong. But his equations are just very good and adequate for us to use. But I don't want to debate this issue. I lost a day explaining this very point once before and don't want to repeat that experience again.

Actually, the one thing we can be certain of in science is that all of our scientific theories are wrong. That's not the same thing, of course, as saying that science has no explanatory power, or that science is useless as a way of understanding the world. Newton's theory of gravitation is extremely useful; NASA uses it to calculate rocket trajectories every day. They don't care that it's 'wrong'; it's useful. We just need to be aware that science is not a revelation of divine truth, and nor does it pretend to be. We can leave that to the Jesus freaks. ;)
#14780341
@B0ycey
Correct. Which is what I think is happening - through inflation. Space, like a balloon, is expanding differently depending on what part of spacetime you're in. Einstein equations work in our galaxy and only fall apart when observing other galaxies. Because of the vast size of space, to us the speed of light is absolute. It is only when we look out into space and other galaxies when things start acting strange. But as soon as you put a variable into equations with the speed of light changing speed, you'll be surprised how the maths equate. But that isn't to say I'm correct. Just that it is what seems to happen when I did.

What you're proposing is basically simillar to the chaotic inflation theory which most observations and studies showed that its rather not viable.
Nevertheless, if we assumed it is viable, this could mean severe implications like for example the false vaccum scenario which under the assumption that the speed of light is a variable, spacetime would be as proposed chaotic and thus things like inflation would be chaotic.
Now what does that mean for the state of the universe ? well, a simple example would be that the universe would be a lot darker since its chaotic thus the distribution of matter is also chaotic in the sense that there will be regions of high concentraiton and others of very low concentration.
That would mean that instead of having so many stars and bright galaxies you'd mostly end up with much more blackholes than stars.

It would also open the possibility to the assumption of whether we live in a true or false vaccum, and mostly leaning towards a false vaccum and that would mean its a matter of chance of whether the universe would keep on or just go out.

My equations worked by the speed of light having no speed whatsoever. It is the rate the spacetime moves. And this changes where you are in space. So when we see light move, we are infact moving to it, not the other way round. Light also expands with spacetime and some addition variables that are quite complex need to be considered too. But that is a basic idea to what I have found. But again, even I'm not convinced with my finding and think they have little foundation to them.


The implications of such scenario being the case are terrifying. Biblical sense of terrifying. :p

But what if spacetime is what defines the speed of light? Then to us, things move further or closer to us. But in reality, in terms of distance of travel, things don't actually change. Because our eyes observe things with light. Again another variable to an equation.

I'm not sure i am getting the idea in this part.

No one really knows exactly why are these constants what they are, the fundemental constants including the speed of light.
But, all are connected to each other, so if one was to change, all others would change as that change would pretty much be a change to the fundemental nature of the universe.
So what you're saying is pretty much what i said earlier. Spacetime being the bedrock of the universe is in line with all these constants. Not sure how to express this honestly. But, spacetime derives its nature from the fundemental constants and the fundemental constants which includes speed of light derives themselves from the nature of spacetime.
So if we go by the assumption that its entirely based on it, though it to large extent is, then it still wouldn't make any difference. Unless ofcourse you're assuming it to be a chaotic variant.
Or are you assuming that the speed of light is basically zero in this part ?
Note, i said earlier its due to causality. This could be taken as misleading for many as the speed of light and the limits of causality are the same value and the pretty much the same thing being based on each other.


Perhaps

Gravity comes to mind.

I didn't like using the term 'suck' but I try to write in a style that everyone can understand what I am talking about, not the select few. Again perhaps I am wrong. But I have a notion that a blackhole slows down spacetime to the point that light cannot escape visually out of it (as its speed is detemined from spacetime) to someone in another part of space. So if you could withstand the forces of gravity in a blackhole, if you looked out of it, the speed of everything to you in space would appear so fast it would be unreal. In other words, like what you said, light cannot escape a blackholes event horizon due to spacetimes velocity.

A couple of points.
1- Light can not escape the event horizon due to gravity.
2- Inside the blackhole-theoritically speaking- light or matter, etc doesn't technically exist.


But what if they do exist in spacetime? But because of gravity, it just slows spacetime down vastly, not halt it completely. What if gravity attracts the fabric of spacetime like it does with mass but to us the observer, we can't see a blackhole because we are expanding faster than light can expand in a blackholes spacetime. Then to us a blackhole is nothing more than a void in space.


Its not a void in space, there is something there. Just not something we can say that it exists within spacetime because spacetime would be deteriorated to a degree that itself barely exists anymore.
#14780347
Well it does seem quite coincidental that we can't see any stars that are after the stars that are going the speed of light. We have been told that was the end of the universe but the fact is ,that if they could go faster then the speed of light we still wouldn't see them and would still think it was the end of the universe So maybe it isn't.
This is my favorite , all stars in every direction are moving away from earth. Do you think that makes us special?
#14780350
No, the same would appear to be true from any point in space.

A good way to think about it is like a balloon expanding. From the point of view of every spot on the balloon as it expands every other spot would be moving away from it at the same speed.
#14780363
Yup the balloon response , love it. My mind got tangled over that more then once. It's still my favorite, I've told people that and explained it and they come back every other day to argue the point. It's hard to decipher it in your mind. They usually come back with , what about the stars on the inside of the balloon. Anyway it's fun.
#14780428
@jbander
Stars don't move away from each other at the speed of light, in matter of fact they don't move away from each other at all.
Stars are simply too small that they're pretty much always trapped in gravitational pull of something else. (i.e they're in galaxies)
Galaxies on the other hand "move" away from each other. This is called inflation, comparing its speed between different reference frames isn't very accurate way to understand it.
But nevertheless, yes, galaxies that are too far apart will be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, though it is important to understand that they're not themselves moving but rather the space between them expanding. And if you're talking for example about galaxies a many many billions of light years apart, the space between them is all expanding at once thus the seperation gets drastically bigger. It doesn't make much sense to look at it this way because its not the right way to look at it.

The things we cant see in the universe due to distance, no one said they don't exist. Their light simply hasn't reached us yet. The observable universe to us is i believe 90 or so billion light years across. You can see more if you waited a couple of billion years :p

Now, if the separation speed between 2 galaxies is indeed faster than light, which is not often the case, then yes, the light between them will never reach each other.
#14780432
anasawad wrote:@B0ycey

What you're proposing is basically simillar to the chaotic inflation theory which most observations and studies showed that its rather not viable.
Nevertheless, if we assumed it is viable, this could mean severe implications like for example the false vaccum scenario which under the assumption that the speed of light is a variable, spacetime would be as proposed chaotic and thus things like inflation would be chaotic.
Now what does that mean for the state of the universe ? well, a simple example would be that the universe would be a lot darker since its chaotic thus the distribution of matter is also chaotic in the sense that there will be regions of high concentraiton and others of very low concentration.
That would mean that instead of having so many stars and bright galaxies you'd mostly end up with much more blackholes than stars.


To explain what I did in a simplistic term, was alter the constant C (the speed of light) into a variable. The variable being the rate the blackhole in the centre of the galaxy is moving (expanding) due to inflation. Different galaxies move (expand) at different rates. Light is fixed (doesn't move compared to inflation) but still expands at the same rate as the part of the universe it was created. If C is a variable, you can explain missing gravity. As for distribution of matter, this is possible because the building blocks were created at the birth of the universe when matter was created, and was spread out (and continues to do) so via inflation.

It would also open the possibility to the assumption of whether we live in a true or false vaccum, and mostly leaning towards a false vaccum and that would mean its a matter of chance of whether the universe would keep on or just go out.


My idea works on the concept that the expansion of the universe is time itself so will keep going forever. This is quite complex to write on here, but it works the same way animation works, just in a 3D/4D form.

The implications of such scenario being the case are terrifying. Biblical sense of terrifying. :p


If I was right, which is highly unlikely.

No one really knows exactly why are these constants what they are, the fundemental constants including the speed of light.
But, all are connected to each other, so if one was to change, all others would change as that change would pretty much be a change to the fundemental nature of the universe.


By making the speed of light a variable where it is in fact the expansion of spacetime instead, it doesn't actually change our understanding with anything in our galaxy. It only alters our understanding in other galaxies. And being nothing can be explained today without dark matter when looking into space, I can't actually see this being a major issue.

So what you're saying is pretty much what i said earlier. Spacetime being the bedrock of the universe is in line with all these constants. Not sure how to express this honestly. But, spacetime derives its nature from the fundemental constants and the fundemental constants which includes speed of light derives themselves from the nature of spacetime.
So if we go by the assumption that its entirely based on it, though it to large extent is, then it still wouldn't make any difference. Unless ofcourse you're assuming it to be a chaotic variant.
Or are you assuming that the speed of light is basically zero in this part ?
Note, i said earlier its due to causality. This could be taken as misleading for many as the speed of light and the limits of causality are the same value and the pretty much the same thing being based on each other.


Largely yes, this is what I propose. The speed of light is a constant, but has no speed and expands at the same rate as the spacetime it's within at the time and spacetime is a variable 'C'. C being the rate spacetime expands not the speed of light (which is nothing).


A couple of points.
1- Light can not escape the event horizon due to gravity.
2- Inside the blackhole-theoritically speaking- light or matter, etc doesn't technically exist.

Its not a void in space, there is something there. Just not something we can say that it exists within spacetime because spacetime would be deteriorated to a degree that itself barely exists anymore.


What I propose is light cannot escape a blackhole because its speed is reduced significantly within one (or space times speed is reduced I should say). A blackhole remains in spacetime though. It is not a void in space. But I am not saying I believe what I am writing, just what I am proposing.
#14780536
anasawad wrote:@jbander
Stars don't move away from each other at the speed of light, in matter of fact they don't move away from each other at all.
Stars are simply too small that they're pretty much always trapped in gravitational pull of something else. (i.e they're in galaxies)
Galaxies on the other hand "move" away from each other. This is called inflation, comparing its speed between different reference frames isn't very accurate way to understand it.
But nevertheless, yes, galaxies that are too far apart will be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, though it is important to understand that they're not themselves moving but rather the space between them expanding. And if you're talking for example about galaxies a many many billions of light years apart, the space between them is all expanding at once thus the seperation gets drastically bigger. It doesn't make much sense to look at it this way because its not the right way to look at it.

The things we cant see in the universe due to distance, no one said they don't exist. Their light simply hasn't reached us yet. The observable universe to us is i believe 90 or so billion light years across. You can see more if you waited a couple of billion years :p

Now, if the separation speed between 2 galaxies is indeed faster than light, which is not often the case, then yes, the light between them will never reach each other.

Little confusion here, From the earths eye (me) are stars (galaxies) and earth separating faster then the speed of light ,so that I can't see them. I'm not leaving until I see a star whose light just now reaches us. It will look like the new star is just created. How many billions of years will I have to wait?
#14780729
A team of Scottish scientists has made light travel slower than the speed of light.

They sent photons - individual particles of light - through a special mask. It changed the photons' shape - and slowed them to less than light speed.

The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space.

The experiment is likely to alter how science looks at light.

The collaborators - from Glasgow and Heriot-Watt universities - are members of the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance. They have published their results in the journal Science Express.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gla ... t-30944584

A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-o ... owed-down/
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Trump is an extraordinarily dangerous narcissist[…]

This obviously did not happen in Gaza. If it had,[…]

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]