Philistine physics

So how does that work? What does this formula describe in your theory and what is this speed which is calculated by it?
I am proposing that within our universe c represents the relationship between space (which you can measure in m) and time (measured in s). This law of nature can be seen in the relationship between how radiation occupies space (wavelength) and time (frequency). 'Speed' is an redundant concept.
The sun's position in and of itself can not really be off by 8.x minutes
I am not claiming that the sun's position in 3d is changing. I am saying that the sun's gravity and distance from the earth is such that there is difference in relative time of 8.5 minutes. In the same way other stars may be 100 years off. Temporal displacement = Spatial displacement / c (or something like that).
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
905
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.

Yes, I know, and the milky way is also in motion and who knows… maybe even our whole universe revolves around another one as well :) .

However, we're all inside this same plain of motion so the sun is as "fixed", relative to earth, as it gets. And 'c' is constant as well.

So my back-to-basics point was that we need to look at what is happening on earth relative to the sun and to its light that is traveling at 'c'.

And when it comes to perception of us humans, you would even have to factor in the speed of our neural systems (less than 'c'). What we see is always off by a tiny little bit since our eyes and brains require a certain "processing" time to assemble the picture we see as the current (subjective) reality.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
I am proposing that within our universe c represents the relationship between space (which you can measure in m) and time (measured in s). This law of nature can be seen in the relationship between how radiation occupies space (wavelength) and time (frequency). 'Speed' is an redundant concept.
Is your theory applicable only to electromagnetic radiation and is speed as a concept in that context redundant or is speed redundant for all kinds of objects as well?

And when it comes to perception of us humans, you would even have to factor in the speed of our neural systems (less than 'c'). What we see is always off by a tiny little bit since our eyes and brains require a certain "processing" time to assemble the picture we see as the current (subjective) reality.
A theory like this would need to be applicable to any and all wavelengths and not only to those that we can perceive (visible, audible or by feeling), which are only a very tiny subset of the infinite possibilities of wave lengths. Any interpretation based on the perception of a human being in this, should be factored out.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
However, we're all inside this same plain of motion so the sun is as "fixed", relative to earth, as it gets. And 'c' is constant as well.

C isn't constant.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2,714
However, we're all inside this same plain of motion so the sun is as "fixed", relative to earth, as it gets.

No, even inside the plane of the solar system, the sun is not fixed relative to the Earth - it moves around. All the bodies in the system orbit the shared centre of mass (which also moves), causing the sun to wobble about relative to the Earth.

EDIT: The reason I mention it here, is that if we were trying to determine the contsancy of c by measuring very accurately the arrival of photons from the sun, we would get distortions from the variations in distance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Is your theory applicable only to electromagnetic radiation and is speed as a concept in that context redundant or is speed redundant for all kinds of objects as well?
I would think it applies to everything, however within our close scale (where Newtonian mechanics work well) the notion of speed is a convenient way of representing it.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
905
My 10-year old son came to me last night with an idea that thought was so cool I have to share it.
What if beyond the edge of the universe there is an infinate non-dimensional space (n-space). This n-space has a gravitational pull so vast it reaches to the center of our universe. This n-space gravity was responsible for tearing the universe open in the big bang (NOT an explosion... fission!) and accounts for the outward acceleration of it ever since.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
905
Pull or push ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
Exactly. The Big Bang is usually thought as a huge explosion that propelled the universe apart, my son's idea is that it is being pulled apart by the n-space that surrounds it.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
905
I thought that time (subjectively) stops for any object moving at the speed of light? E.g. a person moving at C would not notice time passing and would be 'frozen' in time.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
252
My 10-year old son came to me last night with an idea that thought was so cool I have to share it.
What if beyond the edge of the universe there is an infinate non-dimensional space (n-space). This n-space has a gravitational pull so vast it reaches to the center of our universe. This n-space gravity was responsible for tearing the universe open in the big bang (NOT an explosion… fission!) and accounts for the outward acceleration of it ever since.

Dang. That's pretty cool.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,021
Location
Pearl Harbor, HI
Okay, now I understand it. I failed to see that "surrounds it" part.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
Back
Top Bottom