Philistine physics

I work overnights mostly alone and as such I have a lot of time to come up with some crazy ideas. Here is one.
So the constant c is described as the speed of light, I would contend that light travels instantly, and c represents the relationship between time and space, which is constant. When we observe a distant object, for example the sun it is said that the light takes 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. In my view, because of the distance, the Sun is observed to be temporally displaced by 8.5 minutes. All objects are observed in different 'times' based on their distance from the observer. We all see reality differently because we all stand at a different place in space-time.
We know that gravity distorts time, specifically that the flow of time is observed to be different by one close to a massive object compared to one far away. I believe this is because gravity is a manifestation of a non-orthogonal dimension. We cannot visually comprehend it but we can feel it. Massive objects are further away in the 'gravity' direction. The more massive they are, the more distant they are. So when looking at a black hole the temporal displacement is much greater than its apparent displacement in space would suggest, pushing it's observed time-frame to a point before it existed. Since you are looking at it as it appeared before it existed, there is nothing to see - it's just a black hole!
Comments?

Inferior perceptor will suggest displacement, okay. But objects aren't displaced - we're just looking at certain point in their past.

I would think your basic assumption is already false. Light does not move instantly, which can already be shown by light that hits water. It continues under water at a different angle as above water, because it moves slower. The distance from me to the point where the light bends has not changed, so my position in time and space is the same.
Besides that, light is just what we call a range of wavelengths, which we happen to see and it is even the exact same range of wavelengths for all people, let alone animals, who can have even other wavelengths that they would consider as light.
The constant c is incorrectly named ‘speed of light’. It is actually the maximum speed of any conventional matter in a vacuum. As light, and any other wavelength, visible or not, are made up of conventional matter, it is restricted by that maximum speed. Whether or not we can ‘see’ it, is not relevant to this maximum speed.
Unless your theory is only applicable to this small range of wavelengths, which we call ‘light’, all conventional matter has to move instantly and it is just our position in space and time that gives the impression of them having a speed. Like a car, a plane, or me.

As far as I can see it's only speculation. No theoretical foundation (where's the mathematics?), and no experimental support.

Of course speculating can be fun, some times interesting, and in the right context actual useful. Your ideas are to some degree interesting, but they're nothing more than speculation, and not physics.

But by all means, continue speculating.

pibbur who, being familiar with the programming language, thinks c should be written as C.

It continues under water at a different angle as above water, because it moves slower.

Click to expand...

I don't think the light wave does move more slowly. It hits molecules which cause it to transfer the energy into another form before it can be re-emitted beyond. Within the molecule, it is not a wave and cannot travel instantly.

all conventional matter has to move instantly

Click to expand...

I don't follow. Why should objects with mass behave like waves with zero mass?

it's only speculation

Click to expand...

That it is, I threw my ideas out there to see if anyone with a better understanding can validate or disprove them.

Philistine said:

I don't think the light wave does move more slowly. It hits molecules which cause it to transfer the energy into another form before it can be re-emitted beyond. Within the molecule, it is not a wave and cannot travel instantly.

Click to expand...

Light is just electromagnetic radiation. It is a very narrow band in the whole range of electromagnetic wavelengths. Any physics applicable to light must be applicable to the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. The fact that we can observe light does not give it other properties.
Electromagnetic radiation can be described as photons that are massless particles traveling with wavelike properties at the speed of light. When the photon ‘hits’ matter (like a molecule or an atom) it transfers it’s energy to that matter and depending on the properties of the matter it absorbs it or emits it again, but perhaps with a lower energy level. We see red light because the matter that is hit by the photons reflects the photons with a red wavelength and absorbs the photons with other wavelengths.
Anyway, a photon ‘hits’ matter with the speed of light, transfers its energy to it and the matter emits a new photon, which travels again with the speed of light. This process takes time. If there aren’t too many molecules or atoms in it’s path, the overall speed remains roughly the same, but in water there are quite a number of them and as a result the overall speed at which electromagnetic radiation travels is reduced.
Even if your theory is correct and electromagnetic radiation travels instantly, it is still slowed down because of the energy transfer process when the photons are obstructed by matter.

Philistine said:

I don't follow. Why should objects with mass behave like waves with zero mass?

Click to expand...

Like I wrote before, the constant c is applicable to all conventional matter. Any conventional matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Even though actual radiation has no mass (as I described above), it too appears to be limited by this constant c, as countless of experiments have shown.
If you challenge the correctness of the constant c, I am just wondering if you challenge this only for electromagnetic radiation or for conventional matter as well.
If hope you are not challenging the constant c only for that small band of electromagnetic radiation that we happen to call visible light, as that would be really odd.

The idea of movement being instantaneous in relativity is tricky, because there is no universal time. The speed of light is finite, and the journey across space at that speed takes as long as it takes - as in a light year. But, for the photon itself, the journey across any distance - across the room or across the universe - is instantaneous, because time dilation at light speed is absolute; photons do not experience time, and the concept of a journey would be meaningless from that perspective.

What I am saying about c is that it is a factor that does not represent speed at all, but the relationship between time and space. I believe 'time' is totally relative, and different for every observer therefore the notion of 'speed' is relative also. Light only appears to have speed because of the time displacement of the source in space relative to the observer position.
Light or any waveform slowing down as it passes through a medium is due to the process of energy transference and does not represent the 'speed' of unhindered travel .Myrthos, you seem to be quoting dogma. I still see no explanation why mass should travel at the same 'speed' as a wave.

The moderation is deep in dogma.

I'm not sure I understand your theory, but I can clarify a bit about what relativity says on this.

In part, relativity agrees with you, in that there is no such thing as absolute velocity, because there is no such thing as absolute time and space as a referrence; it can only be measured against something else that is moving relative to it. What it says, in a nutshell, is that the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is always the same. This makes it very unique, and in order for that to be true, time and space must be flexible, or relative.

Before Einstein, experimentalists had proven that light, unlike most things we deal with, cannot have its speed added to or reduced by the speed of whatever emitted it. The classic example is that of being on speeding train, and firing a bullet from a gun in the same direction of travel. The speed of the train would be added to the speed of the bullet.

But, if you fire some photons in the same direction, their speed is always the same - the speed of the train is not added. Essentially, Einstein came along and said, OK, let's assume that the speed of light is the only thing in the scenario that is always constant - so what else must be true to account for that? The conclusion is that spacetime must be flexible, and he worked out the equations and their implications.

As to why the speed of light should be the constant, and spacetime what deforms, I'm not aware of a good answer. But it's extremely well established that this is the case.

Of course, we know relativity is not the whole picture, and just as Newtonian physics was just a very powerful approximation of reality, there's a good chance that relativity is an approximation of a deeper theory we don't yet comprehend.

Perhaps you've cracked it!

The constant c was already determined before Einstein came up with his relativity theory, as the speed of electromagnetic radiation. The effect of the relativity theory of Einstein made this constant also the maximum speed at which objects with a mass can travel in a vacuum.
If you have a different interpretation of c then how does that apply to objects with a mass. Will they also move instantaneously?

You presented a theory. Now how about some facts to support that theory ? You make lots of statements but they are all baseless since there are no facts provided to support them. This is like saying that pollution is good for our health because we need to build resistance to dirt (yea yea Pshit just nominated a quack with that view to the epa science board). The point is that what you said might sound good but quite a bit of it is actually provable (or more precisely can be proven to be incorrect). For example you state that gravity can impact light - but if gravity is impacting light how can light be instant - wouldn't being instant imply immunity from gravity ?

Philistine said:

What I am saying about c is that it is a factor that does not represent speed at all, but the relationship between time and space. I believe 'time' is totally relative, and different for every observer therefore the notion of 'speed' is relative also. Light only appears to have speed because of the time displacement of the source in space relative to the observer position.
Light or any waveform slowing down as it passes through a medium is due to the process of energy transference and does not represent the 'speed' of unhindered travel .Myrthos, you seem to be quoting dogma. I still see no explanation why mass should travel at the same 'speed' as a wave.

Click to expand...

If you have a different interpretation of c then how does that apply to objects with a mass. Will they also move instantaneously?

Click to expand...

NO! That's why I kept asking you why you believe they should.

You state that gravity can impact light - but if gravity is impacting light how can light be instant - wouldn't being instant imply immunity from gravity ?

Click to expand...

I don't think you read/understood my initial post. I believe waves travel instantly BUT they appear to travel slower because as objects are displaced in time relative to their position in space. IN addition, gravity acts like a dimension causing objects with mass to be more distant than 3d space would suggest. Since the object is more distant, this increases the time displacement. One experiment that could be conducted to prove this would be if we sent 2 probes out, one to a near solar orbit, and one to the same linear distance but in free space. Measure the delay in signal reception to see if the one from solar orbit is longer.
I'm not offering, proof because I don't have any. That was the point of this thread, to see if anyone here with the knowledge or skills can prove/disprove my idea.

Philistine said:

NO! That's why I kept asking you why you believe they should.

Click to expand...

I repeatedly mentioned that in my posts. The constant c, describes the maximum speed that an object with mass can have in a vacuum (if you put enough energy in it). As photons are without mass, they already move at that maximum speed.
You stated:

So the constant c is described as the speed of light, I would contend that light travels instantly, and c represents the relationship between time and space, which is constant.

Click to expand...

According to your statement c does not represent the speed of light, but the relationship between time and space. So your definition of c is different. There are however several formulas in which c is a factor. I simply do not understand how your theory of what the constant c is, can be applied to all cases where the constant c is used. Currently they are all proven to be correct.
This would mean that the current formulas in which the constant c is used are not correct anymore. Just to name some formulas: Einstein's E=mc2, c = f (c = wavelength times frequency), Maxwell's formula of electromagnetism.
You already mentioned that you belief the formula of refraction to be incorrect (n=c/v) as a response to my example with light and water.

So, my confusion lies in not understanding how your definition of c makes all the theories in which the constant c is used correct again.

The constant c, describes the maximum speed that an object with mass can have in a vacuum (if you put enough energy in it). As photons are without mass, they already move at that maximum speed.

Click to expand...

Before you kept asking me if objects with mass would travel instantly, and my response is they would need infinite energy applied to them, so no.
I am not disputing the value of c, just the definition. It's usefulness in equations remains the same.

Several days ago I had this weird thought.

If Light travels spacetime, and Black Holes distort spacetime, isn't the speed of light alsop distirted, then, because it functions only within spacetime ?

And then I came to this even weirder thought :

If the speed of light is a constant - a numerical constant, then … how much energy must be put into this constant to keep it constant (in this case : keep the speed of light constant) if Entropy is all things eventually turn (in)to ?

And then I thought : If Entropy is The Thing - I mean, that everything tuns (in)to Entropy one day, then how are numerical constants kept constant ? How much energy must be put into any numerical constant so that it remains constant and won't get distorted by turning into entropy ?

Was that clear ? It's a bit difficult for me to describe what I mean in English language.

Edit : Plus the question why and how constant numerical values became constant in our universe anyway ?

I think light loses intensity (not speed) as it succumbs to entropy.

Philistine said:

Before you kept asking me if objects with mass would travel instantly, and my response is they would need infinite energy applied to them, so no.
I am not disputing the value of c, just the definition. It's usefulness in equations remains the same.

Click to expand...

That is a bit too easy. The value of a constant is related to its definition. You are changing the definition of the constant, but the constant just happens to have the same number?
Anyway, as the formulas are still correct as you described, let’s try something else. Any electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength and a frequency. It is easy to proof that if you increase a frequency the wavelength will decrease. It can be measured and the formula is c = wavelength * frequency.
Wavelengths are in meters and a frequency is in 1/s, as a result c must be a number in meters per second, which is a speed.
You state that electromagnetic radiation moves instantly, yet electromagnetic radiation does have a wavelength (unless you contest that as well).
So how does that work? What does this formula describe in your theory and what is this speed which is calculated by it?

Re the original post: I think it is important to remember that the sun is a fixed star. The sun's position in and of itself can not really be off by 8.x minutes.
It might take the individual photons about 8 minutes to reach earth but the only thing that is ever changing during that time is earth's position relative to the sun and not vice versa.

Moriendor said:

It might take the individual photons about 8 minutes to reach earth but the only thing that is ever changing during that time is earth's position relative to the sun and not vice versa.

Click to expand...

That's not strictly true. The Earth and Sun both orbit their shared barycenter. That's how distant planets have been discovered - by measuring a star's slight movement caused these small stellar orbits.