At the speed of light time does not stop (Page 3)

lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: But it’s a impossible thought. I’m not sure light isn’t instant it uses time a nano second is the time it takes light to move one meter???? Not sure. It’s travel in about 187 000 miles per second. We can say that the speed of light is the speed of time you will not evolve in time at that speed?? But it’s impossible so it’s just my imagination that limits this. Good book and easy to read and understand ( I could) is a book by Brian Greene titled the elegant universe. He explaine the time and space issues and much more and it’s a interesting entertaining book as well not a sleepy one
6 years ago Report
0
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: The light traveler will find his generation dead and perhaps the next too because here on earth time would have passed by like normal. For him time also passes by normal but in reference to earth his time slow down till a stop. That’s how we look back in time. When we look at galaxy’s 100.000 light years away we see them like they was for 100.000 years ago. What we see is the light that have traveled in space for 100.000 years before hitting your telescope and your eye
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I understand the speed of light doesn't Change. Only the riders perspection if that the correct word for it ', I Haven't been able to get a clear answer about the perspection of the rider .
Doesn't his time stop noting that he's traveling at the speed of light , Einstein's stated the speed of light was only obtainable too 99.99 % However :our imagined rider is traveling at 100% c ?
So I believe; that means time has stopped from the light beam ,and the riders perception ? Therefore; the rider perceives that the ride was instant
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
0
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Ok if you ride a light beam and most of space is empty like 99.999999 % that’s just a guess. So you will feel like you are not moving at all unless you pass a object. But you cannot tell it it’s the object that is moving or you. In fact you will think it’s the object. And nothing is stationary in the universe so speed got a more defuse meaning. Earth travel about 40.000 mph around the sun. The sun is rotating around its local group of stars which again rotating in a bigger closter of stars the whole milkyway galaxy rotating around it self and also within its local galaxy group that whole group rotating with other galaxy groups and different groups are moving apart from each other’s at a speed that seems like the longer the galaxy system is the faster does it expand away. The whole universe is expanding except on local stuff like we are colliding with the adroma galaxy at some point but that’s nothing you or any generations after you have to be concern about becouse our sun is probably done with its life span before that. And two galaxy’s combined can go very well for the most part
6 years ago Report
1
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Motion only has a sense when it compared with something like a car moving on a road we can say that the car will move 80 miles with in an hour at current speed. A aircraft use both ground speed and air speed. The universe??? The cool thing with light which people observed but nobody before Einstein wanted to talk about is that light always has the same speed regardless who observes it lets say you drive a car in 1000 mph and my car is parked with the headlights on. You would think that your lights will go light speed + a 1000 mph so faster than my lights. That turns out not to be the case thay both travel at the same speed but non of them are slowing down to be nice to the other beam. That notion was the reason Einstein reliesd something about that day’s work wasn’t right. How could that be?? Anyone want to answer? If you send a light beam in opposite directions you would think that you will have between them twice the speed of light. Like two cars driving away from each other at 100 mph between them we all agree on that the speed of separation is 200 mph. Not with light. How can this be? Because light don’t slow down. Something else is happening. It’s space it’s self that prevents this to happen. I’m not so good to explain but you can Youtube this and get a better answer than I provide
6 years ago Report
1
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Here the time question come inn to it’s fullest understanding
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: It's the same with cars travelling apart . If both car were to leave the same point ,and travel at 100 MPH in opposite direction. In reality there only traveling 100 mph . Because if you were to turn one of the vehicles around and chase the other car', you would over take it as long as it traveling at 101 mph . Distance travel has nothing to do with speed . The speed of Light is just a measurement of the time it takes travel a distance .

Light travels at 100% c therefore the rider of the Light beam doesn't see anything other than his arrival IMO ? I haven't heard anything that shows other wise ?
I really like too know if this is the case ? Even if the rider is travelling a billion light years away . We here will have long since disappeared I the billion light years to our reward However: for the rider traveling at the speed of light time has stopped ?




(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
0
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: The reason light travel at the same speed independent of the speed of source or observer is simply that time slows down something in motion let’s say I have a space ship that travel at 100 000 mph. Fast. And you just travel at 10 mph both having headlights the photons (the particle that is light ) will leave my ship and you at exactly same speed simply because time dilation. Because I’m traveling so much faster my time in respect to you slows down so our light beams will move forward at the same speed. I don’t even understand what I’m talking about really but I looked it up. Perhaps you will understand it better. Space is like a treadmill even if you run at full speed and I’m just walking we still be right next to each other because the speed of the belt you running on goes faster and prevent you from running away. With light space itself does the same thing with time itself
6 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Exactly what I'm saying and have always understood it
6 years ago Report
0
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: I don’t quite understand it sometimes I make my self confused
6 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: No worries. Not even those that say they do understand it ,can answer my Question
Science doesn't know as much as it often acts like it does
It's a interesting study
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
0
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Guess space is dynamic called spacetime it can wrap around things ( gravity) or simply slow down so light always has the same speed regardless but it is hard to fully visualize how that works and why light is so important in the universe that it kinda is in charge
6 years ago Report
1
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Right science has become tv show business
6 years ago Report
1
lisa99hunter
lisa99hunter: Now it’s all about getting a name and be on discovery channel and just talk around and around about nothing really
6 years ago Report
1
mmickey782
mmickey782: --->God said, "Let there be light....Gene:1:3: " and and behold, there was light!!!!!!!! God created the light!. the very nature of it, it's speed, it's power, the substance through which it can pass, the energy that it carries, its behavior and so on!
So give God the Glory!!... case closed!
(Edited by mmickey782)
6 years ago Report
2
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Very Interesting study
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Off topic However if someone could help me understand this article a little better

"An alternative to the Big Bang

By Kasim Muflahi


The current theory of the Big Bang claims that the universe started as a 'cosmic atom' as described by Georges Lemaitre's solution of Einstein's field equations as they relate to cosmology. Although Einstein rejected the solution, Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding which implied that the universe had a beginning. So, Lemaitre 1, Einstein nil.

Schwarzschild also gave a solution of the field equations in relation to celestial bodies and concluded that at a particular radius, massive stars would collapse increasing their gravitational escape velocity to such a point that even light cannot escape it thus causing black holes. Again, Einstein denies this but was found to be true.

Black holes are now thought to have singularities at their centres which implies that the universe began from a singularity which is defined as all the mass stored in a point of zero volume. This makes it an absurdity because a physical entity cannot exist in zero volume. The proof for this is that the laws of physics fail at a singularity.

Because of this failure, all theories that proclaim to describe the Big Bang i.e. the creation of the universe and everything in it are false or at least unprovable. So, I'm not going to explain how the universe was created from nothing. Religions have been described as false. If this is true, then it's just as true or false as that of the scientific description of creation.

Hence, I'm going to start with an expanding universe shortly after creation by whatever means where we ended up with a humongous amount of energy which means that I'm going to skip Cosmic Inflation because it was an orgy of law breaking that created the humongous amount of energy without permission from the law of conservation of energy (COE) nor the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP). Before I give my theory, let me clear up one issue about the HUP.

The HUP was created to solve the measurement problem especially at the quantum level which is if you know the position of a quantum particle, you can't know the exact momentum of that particle because the act of measuring the position interferes with the position and hence interferes with the momentum and vice versa. This interference is dealt with by the uncertainty of the position and momentum and when multiplied together they should be at least ℏ2 ℏ2. In other words, there's always a minimum error inherent in each measurement.

When the HUP is applied to the Big Bang, there is no energy nor time to begin with; so there's no measurement problem. But the HUP has been used to create an infinitesimal amount of energy which, when multiplied with an infinitesimal period of time is at least ℏ2 ℏ2. But there was no energy to measure anyway; so, how did they ended up with energy that breaks the COE. Some scientists, like Lawrence Krauss, claim that ΔE.ΔT<ℏ2 ΔE.ΔT<ℏ2. Otherwise, there's no limit on how much energy you can borrow nor will there be any time limit for how long you can borrow it for because the product will always be >ℏ2 >ℏ2.

Then the borrowed energy was never paid back to the vacuum in direct violation of the HUP which violated the COE in the first place. This means that we're living on borrowed energy and borrowed time. At one time, I used to say that I'm living in fear that the universe will snap out of existence when nature tries to balance its books. This is analogous to a foreclosure because the universe didn't pay back the energy it borrowed at its creation.

Another point is that George Gamow said that in the beginning, the universe was very small in size with all the energy required to build a universe contained therein, hence it would be extremely hot. Some scientists claim that it's trillions upon trillions of kelvin in temperature. A careful study of how temperature is measured wil lead you to conclude that Gamow is wrong because temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the particles not the amount of energy. So, if the size of the universe was very small, there wouldn't be enough room for movement to have enough KE to produce such humongous temperatures.

Consider the surface of the sun. It's surface temperature has been measured to be 6000K but as you go further out from the surface, the temperature rises to astronomic levels because there's more and more room for the particles to gain KE and hence rise in temperature. So, scientific theories have been riddled with false statements like there was no tomorrow.

The current Big Bang theory is ridiculous and untenable and it's ripe for a replacement.

So, my starting point is an expanding universe full of a fixed amount of energy that can't be destroyed nor any new energy can be created; only the existing energy being transformed from one form to another. First, I'd like to postulate that there's no such thing as antimatter; but, unlike Einstein, I intend to prove it; otherwise it isn't science. This explains why science is riddled with false theories. It's because they're based on false postulates that the authors have no intention of proving.

Anyway, this primordial energy must turn into matter one way or the other. In 1932, Carl Anderson experimented with gamma-ray photons where he found that they split into electron-positron pairs. In 1932, the positron was called the anti-electron which was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 who gave it that name. Anderson was so excited of finding the predicted anti-electron that he lost sight of the fact that energy photons turned into matter which is more exciting, to me at least. He was after a Nobel prize which he was awarded in 1936 for the discovery.

I'm suggesting that that's what happened to the primordial energy - it split into electron-positron pairs. People have argued that energy can split into any particle-antiparticle pairs you like. This implies that proton-antiproton and neutron-antineutron pairs can easily be made and these are observed in particle accelerators. I once asked would we get oxygen-antioxygen pairs? The obvious answer was no; it seems that atom-antiatom pairs are extremely unlikely.

However, quark-antiquark pairs are called mesons which are extremely unstable and decay into photons, electrons and positrons depending on their charge. So, the end products are leptons and energy which form a plasma that traps the energy. According to the current theory, the matter and antimatter annihilate each other into pure energy which cannot split into electron-positron pairs because they're of lower energy.

Because the plasma is opaque to radiation, it traps the energy for ever. So how did the electrons and positrons turn into matter? The only solution is that the protons were made from the electrons and positrons which were made from the splitting of energy. The structure of the proton would be like that of an atom i.e. a positive nucleus made of positrons orbited by electrons with an excess positron in the nucleus and its partner electron remained in the plasma. This structure has been noted to be one of the most stable structures in the universe.

But, this is a wasteful process as described by the current theory because only 1 matter particle in a billion survived the annihilation process thanks to the unknown and unknowable matter-antimatter asymmetry that was invented to save false theories, or rather their authors, from embarrassment.

Imperial College London proposed an experiment to prove the Briet-Wheeler theory that lower energy photons can collide, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs. Once these forward-looking scientists prove that the Breit-Wheeler theory is correct, we will have proved that nature is not as wasteful as current theories claim because the lower energy photons will have been recycled. Being trapped within the plasma, the lower energy photons would've had no choice but to collide, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs.

The formation of protons from electrons and positrons would have removed these particles from the plasma so the annihilation process would slow down to a stop. When protons collide, they would form a diproton which would quickly capture an electron from the plasma to become a deuteron. When 2 deuterons collide, they'll form helium-4. It's also possible for helium-3 to be formed as it is stable but neither this nor deuterons are mentioned in the current theory of the Big Bang.

These nuclei would then acquire the remaining electrons in the plasma to form neutral atoms which are transparent to energy so any remaining energy escaped but it's NOT the CMB but that's another story. The current theory claims that 75% hydrogen, 25% helium-4, and traces of lithium were produced. That means that the majority of protons did not coalesce to form higher elements at least not in the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. I can't argue with these figures as my theory is about structures not quantities.

The rest of the story is as given by current cosmological theory after the neutralisation of the plasma. But, that may be subject to change."
6 years ago Report
0
SoulUniverse2045
(Post deleted by staff 5 years ago)
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Reading that long long entry from Blackshoe, Who ever originally wrote that was stuck in ancient physics. The Big Bang is just a term, doesnt mean there was a black hole that went bang. The eruption into our Space/Time was of pure energy, which later coalesced into basic particles like protons neutrons etc, but also anti protons Neutrons etc. These annihilated again back into pure energy all the while our space/time was expanding at an exponential rate.
At some point enough hydrogen was assembled to make the first gigantic stars, which went Nova quickly creating even heavier elements. 13.8 billion years later here we are debating whether God did it or not.
There is a theory that a collapse of the last universe into a big enough black hole/singularity reached a point where space/time was broken and the pure energy of the singularity was erupted into this dimension, creating a new universe. Physicists are working on it, but right now its beyond us.
5 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: kitty I understand the Big bang theory ,and that it's excepted .I'm pointing out '.It's .Not accepted By everyone
I'm NOT a theoretical physicist, cosmologist,,. I read this ,and both sides makes sense .
I'm not Qualify to say what happen in the Beginning from theoretical physicist, cosmologist, position', I 'm just showing what those that Know what they're talking about say .
For every thing She said He said .
As far as Creation there' s no debate ! God created all things . Science can Argue about, How It all came about until Judgment day for all I care .
Nothing can come from Nothing !
Science Make Assumptions ! The Big Bang theory states that Antimatter annihilated equal amounts of Matter and Matter won . It seems odd too me that lesser amounts of antimatter allowed matter to win ?
Yet : like the Scientist ", What do I know ?

(Edited by Blackshoes)
5 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Blackshoe, I was picking on the article not you.
Matter won where we can see it, There may be areas with antimatter still. Physicists keep coming up with a mass of the universe thats greater than what we see, and I have no idea just what properties antimatter would have. Antigravity? , could be sitting in dark singularities far from any galaxies. It would explain the bubble effect we see in the universe as a whole.
5 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I'm speaking of the hypothetical or assumption made By Science about the Big Bang
Just pointing out ,Science doesn't know what happen .It's assumed or as they like to call it hypothetical

The Big Bang theory is interesting yet not confirmed . The Evidence is convincing but certainly not concrete
(Edited by Blackshoes)
5 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Thats where the math and the testing come in, helps verify.
5 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: What I understand all theoretical physic Breaks down within the Singularity ,It remain unverifiable ?
(Edited by Blackshoes)
5 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Not anymore, they have proven the existence of them, and that really large ones exist in the center of Galaxies. But, your right about physics breaking down in the singularity, we have no way of figuring what is or isnt true in there.
5 years ago Report
0