The speed of Time and Reality.

I dislike the height of human intellect saying light is as fast as anything is capable of (including gravity). Thus I propose we look into the abstract meaning of speed.

1. Does light actually move or is it static while everything else moves around it?

2. Can we put a speed on reality? Simply reading these words effects the rest of the universe, but how quickly? How quick does displacement of any kind of matter affect matter billions of light-years away?

Take into account that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but reformed.

Well the whole thought process about the speed of light will have to be completely reformed or at least changed in my opinion. With the discovery of SN1987A neutrinos were detected at first light of the supernova. That would mean that they travel at the speed of light. Since we can detect them with huge lakes of mineral oil would suggest that they have mass. Now, the theory of relativity states that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. That is just one of many things that has brought the theory under fire. Yes, the speed of light is simply part of the theory, but I think that the theory will have to be completely worked over.

Very intersting concept you have there. I'll have to sit and think about that for a little while. I would think this belongs in the philosiphy forum. Not sure though.

Ok geez Poly i'll go find a scale and finnish this argument.


And i'm NOT fat.:( :mad:I have little mass.:mad:

Originally posted by I-Tech

1. Does light actually move or is it static while everything else moves around it?



MMMM.....NOT:biggrin2:

Originally posted by Neutrino
Ok geez Poly i'll go find a scale and finnish this argument.


And i'm NOT fat.:( :mad:I have little mass.:mad:




MMMM.....NOT:biggrin2:

Oh dear lord, I never stopped to think about that. ROTFLMAO!!!! :hehehe:

Light obviously moves on its own, as it can go different directions. Ie torches and sunrises etc, different angles therfore mean light is moving, unless we totally warp out of proportion moving to make the light look as though it IS moving when it really is static and our perceptions also change so everything which has been warped to allow this static light to appear full of life remains in a constant form. Ouch, I hurt my head.

And a speed on reality? Sure, the good days i spent with my ex, lasted 5.5 seconds, the bad days I spend with this woman at my work take around 14.8 weeks. :p

Light must move as it has to travel from 1 point (example = the sun) to its destination (example = the earth).

Can you define reality let alone put a speed on it?

Originally posted by tazdev

Can you define reality let alone put a speed on it?

Ok are you guys serious about talking phisics or just phylosophy? So i know how to take this thread.

Originally posted by Polygon
Well the whole thought process about the speed of light will have to be completely reformed or at least changed in my opinion. With the discovery of SN1987A neutrinos were detected at first light of the supernova. That would mean that they travel at the speed of light. Since we can detect them with huge lakes of mineral oil would suggest that they have mass. Now, the theory of relativity states that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. That is just one of many things that has brought the theory under fire. Yes, the speed of light is simply part of the theory, but I think that the theory will have to be completely worked over.

Very intersting concept you have there. I'll have to sit and think about that for a little while. I would think this belongs in the philosiphy forum. Not sure though.

Actually, your not quit right about SN1987A neutrinos. They were not quite traveling at the speed of light, but it was a very high fraction of the speed of light. Its speed could easily be mistaken as the c. Additionally, the equipment used to measure their speed during that supernova did not have the precision to conclude that the neutrinos were traveling exactly at the speed of light. But, nonetheless, I agree that special relativity has to be reworked. Some much evidence is popping up from many different fields of science that is contrary to the idea of a constant speed of light. In fact, some people even think the speed of light was faster during the early origins of our universe. But, on the other hand, I think it is still safe to say that in general the speed of light is roughly constant. If it were not true, matter could not exist. Just my 2 cents.

Ps: sorry bout this post. I don't mean to sound like a nerd or something. I only know this becuase im studying to be a nuclear engineer.

Originally posted by I-Tech
1. Does light actually move or is it static while everything else moves around it?

I like that idea; its a new concept I've never thought of...although, they say that the Universe is in fact expanding @ an accelerating rate, so in our frame of reference, we must see light accelerating as well.

As well as someone said; Einstein's most famous work doesn't allow it.

What I like the most...is if we define time into past, present and future, the present is a very small space of time.

I mean, within a second, the present has moved to become the futrue and that moment that was just present has now become the past!

Life moves quick eh!. I mean if u wanna braodern u're time frame a lil to make the present the current day or something, the moment the clock reaches 12-midnight and no seconds, u're in the cusp of past meeting the present, the present becoming past and also the present becoming the future, and what was the futre, becomming the present.

*shakes head*...I think if we all read too much into nothing, then at the most we'll just confuse tha shitte outta ourselves and there will be no real purpose to whateva this discussion started out to be!.

Originally posted by MiSS-GvS
What I like the most...is if we define time into past, present and future, the present is a very small space of time.

I mean, within a second, the present has moved to become the futrue and that moment that was just present has now become the past!

Life moves quick eh!. I mean if u wanna braodern u're time frame a lil to make the present the current day or something, the moment the clock reaches 12-midnight and no seconds, u're in the cusp of past meeting the present, the present becoming past and also the present becoming the future, and what was the futre, becomming the present.

*shakes head*...I think if we all read too much into nothing, then at the most we'll just confuse tha shitte outta ourselves and there will be no real purpose to whateva this discussion started out to be!.

lol, then the thread will be moved to OT...

well, the present is all relative.

Originally posted by I-Tech
I dislike the height of human intellect saying light is as fast as anything is capable of (including gravity). Thus I propose we look into the abstract meaning of speed.

1. Does light actually move or is it static while everything else moves around it?

2. Can we put a speed on reality? Simply reading these words effects the rest of the universe, but how quickly? How quick does displacement of any kind of matter affect matter billions of light-years away?

Take into account that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but reformed.

gravity doesnt have a "speed". It just does it's thing, and reaches infinitley far.

Light moves. Pretty fast too.

How do reading those words affect the rest of the universe?

matter CAN be created AND destroyed. Energy cannot.

Originally posted by Steel


gravity doesnt have a "speed". It just does it's thing, and reaches infinitley far.

Light moves. Pretty fast too.

How do reading those words affect the rest of the universe?

matter CAN be created AND destroyed. Energy cannot.

2 comments. One is that we do not know enough about gravity to determine if it has a speed or not. Some think gravity is made up of moving particles with no mass for example. The truth is that even though we know so much about what gravity does, we really don't know how or why it does it. And two, oops I forgot what I was about to say. So Ill just leave it as that.

Reality is relative.

Originally posted by Steel
matter CAN be created AND destroyed. Energy cannot.

Are you sure?
What about Einstein's E=mc^2 ?

Originally posted by rsxer45


2 comments. One is that we do not know enough about gravity to determine if it has a speed or not. Some think gravity is made up of moving particles with no mass for example. The truth is that even though we know so much about what gravity does, we really don't know how or why it does it. And two, oops I forgot what I was about to say. So Ill just leave it as that.

Don't forget electrical charges as well.

Originally posted by rsxer45
I think it is still safe to say that in general the speed of light is roughly constant. If it were not true, matter could not exist. Just my 2 cents.

Hmm... How can you conclude this? What do you define by matter?

My definition of matter is anything that contains mass, which implies that it has energy. I have a couple reasons why matter can't exist if relativity does not exist. One reason revolves around the concept of electric fields. Without these fields nothing would be able to bind electrons in an orbital around a nucleus. Currently, we believe electric fields propogate at the speed of light. If this the speed of light were non-constant then, if some person or something of mass is traveling at a highly velocity, the speed at which the electric field would propogate would decrease and possibly rip the electrons off the atoms. This would not allow life to exist. After all we are all moving at high speeds already around heavenly bodies. Thus all chemical reactions would not exist and matter itslef could exist. This explanation kind of sucks so Im going to do a little more research and reply back a little later.

I always thought the argument that 'light speed is the fastest speed possible' was silly.

How do we measure speed? It's always how fast something is moving compared to another object..such as a car, moving past a bush....but the bush is also moving, it is on a planet, which is moving past the sun..but the sun is turning, and moving within a solar system, which is moving within a galaxy, which is moving within a universe, etc. etc.

Here's a question: You're on a light particle, traveling at light speed, due north. I'm on another light particle, traveling due south. We pass each other. How fast am I moving, relative to you?

My dad has a book exploring the current theory that gravity does indeed move...last time I tried to read it I was too young as that was about 5 years ago...I think I'll try and read it again.

Originally posted by boingo82
I always thought the argument that 'light speed is the fastest speed possible' was silly.

How do we measure speed? It's always how fast something is moving compared to another object..such as a car, moving past a bush....but the bush is also moving, it is on a planet, which is moving past the sun..but the sun is turning, and moving within a solar system, which is moving within a galaxy, which is moving within a universe, etc. etc.

Here's a question: You're on a light particle, traveling at light speed, due north. I'm on another light particle, traveling due south. We pass each other. How fast am I moving, relative to you?



To answer your first question, speed is measured relative to an inertial reference frame, which by definition assumes that the law of inertia holds. These reference frames have to be moving with a constant velocity in order for the law of inertia to hold. Now you might argue that if we choose the ground as an inertial reference frame, then the earth is accelerating (non-constant velocity) by its own natural rotation and its revolution around the sun. But, these accelerations when taken into a combined effect result in accelerations on the order of 0.01 m/s^2. So, technically, measuring velocity with respect to the earth is an approximation but, it is fairly accurate cause its acceleration is very small. The same reasoning holds for the galaxy rotating. In short, its all a rough approximation.

For your second question, you are traveling at the speed of light relative to me (not 2*c like our intuition would tell us) becuase the speed of light is proven to be constant (by empirical evidence) in any reference frame.

Originally posted by rsxer45


To answer your first question, speed is measured relative to an inertial reference frame, which by definition assumes that the law of inertia holds. These reference frames have to be moving with a constant velocity in order for the law of inertia to hold. Now you might argue that if we choose the ground as an inertial reference frame, then the earth is accelerating (non-constant velocity) by its own natural rotation and its revolution around the sun. But, these accelerations when taken into a combined effect result in accelerations on the order of 0.01 m/s^2. So, technically, measuring velocity with respect to the earth is an approximation but, it is fairly accurate cause its acceleration is very small. The same reasoning holds for the galaxy rotating. In short, its all a rough approximation.

For your second question, you are traveling at the speed of light relative to me (not 2*c like our intuition would tell us) becuase the speed of light is proven to be constant (by empirical evidence) in any reference frame.

Ummm...can I have that in English now?:D I can see what you're saying though.

ok well they can get a electron moving up to 99.9% of the speed of light.. there is not enough energy to get it moving to 100%
but light itself moves, yes..
although bear in mind that a lot of physics is still theorys..
althogh i am still a bit on the fence about the time going at diff speeds.. i think it's a bunch of shit..
if i stand still for 1 second it took 1 second..
if i fly at the speed of light or above for 1 second it still took 1 second..
i've read the stupid thing and a few books from all the smart guys.. but time is time.. no matter where you are or how fast you are moving..
it all depends on how ya measure it..

Originally posted by Steel


gravity doesnt have a "speed". It just does it's thing, and reaches infinitley far.

Light moves. Pretty fast too.

How do reading those words affect the rest of the universe?

matter CAN be created AND destroyed. Energy cannot.

If gravity reached infinitely far, obviously the universe would be expanding at a DEcelerating rate, as all the mass, having gravity, would attract all the other pieces of matter, eventually stopping the increase in growth of the universe, and reversing it, ultimately ending in a singularity being created, with all of the matter in the universe being in it. This is where I believe the big bang to come from.

Also, about the light moving or being static, of course light moves, otherwise, if you had two light sources, projecting light in two DIFFERENT directions, through the same piece of space time, that piece of space time would have to be moving in the opposite direction to BOTH streams of light, which, if the lights were placed with some component of their directions opposing one another, would lead to that particular piece of space time having to move in one direction, as well as the opposite direction, at the same time.

Reading these words affect the universe because at minimum, they cause small chemical reactions in your brain, which, if you hadn't have read these words, wouldn't have happened.

Originally posted by THE4TH
ok well they can get a electron moving up to 99.9% of the speed of light.. there is not enough energy to get it moving to 100%
but light itself moves, yes..
although bear in mind that a lot of physics is still theorys..
althogh i am still a bit on the fence about the time going at diff speeds.. i think it's a bunch of shit..
if i stand still for 1 second it took 1 second..
if i fly at the speed of light or above for 1 second it still took 1 second..
i've read the stupid thing and a few books from all the smart guys.. but time is time.. no matter where you are or how fast you are moving..
it all depends on how ya measure it..

I believe that time can flow at different rates, because the big bang is one massive explosion, which is still occurring, and some sections of time space will be different from other sections, which is where the wormhole theory comes from.

The time being different when you travel at speeds close to C is because of the theory about length contraction, time contraction, and mass dilation where, when you increase the energy in the space you are in to the amount needed to travel at a speed near light speed, you are suddenly carrying a large percentage of the energy contained in the universe, and so you get large, and the universe gets smaller, to you. To someone watching you fly through space, it just looks like something travelling the normal distance at the speed of light. So while to someone not travelling, it may take years, to you, because your energy grew to a proportion of the universe's energy, your time became slower, or the universe's time became faster.

I think light is the fastest speed in the universe because it is the speed at which a disturbance in space-time propogates, with space-time being in a certain state. Like a wave going through water, is an analogy you can think of, but time-space is something you cannot see. I say space-time being in a certain state because you know how when oil is cold, it is thick, and it moves very slowly compared to when it is hot. The universe has cooled as it expanded, although some regions are hotter than others still. So when the universe was hotter, and expanding more rapidly, so too could space-time have been "hotter" and light would have been able to propogate through it much more quickly.

Once we work out what lies beneath space-time, we will be able to overcome light speed. In which case, we will probably be able to warp space-time, as we will know what it is made of, and thus use worm-holes to travel.

it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything with a mass to c. that's why light has no mass, but yet has a force and can be bent by gravity. weird stuff i tell you.