Wanderer101 wrote:What do think is limiting the speed of light to the rate at which it moves at? Is the photon magically bound to the rate it moves at? Why does the speed of light have a very specific rate of motion?
I offer something here, about how nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you. Which is right on point, the 'changing mass' perspective. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and more force must be exerted to produce a given acceleration. Or, better, the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy approach infinity at the speed of light. Since the net applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum and the work done is equal to the change in energy, it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light. I've given these equations, of course, I think your answer is 'that's not an explanation'. I'm not certain that you've taken the point on board.
We've been through Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, Einstein concluded that different observers must see time differently. That the speed that one progressed through time varied with your frame of reference and relative motion to the object you are observing. I'd like to be able to puzzle out on my own, how you've reconciled w/the idea, that, as Einstein theorized, good clocks will not always agree in what time it is because they move through time at different speeds. I fear, that you take this to in fact not have been proven, as I am given to understand that it has been.
I'm not even certain, that you consider, that if someone is moving at 99% of the speed of light and shines a light in front of them, one would think it would only go 1% faster, and for a stationary observer (whatever that really means) it would look that way. However, from the point of view of the person moving, it looks to them as if the light is moving away at 100% of the speed of light. Tell me again, how can that be? A 'standard' explanation here, as I understand it, is that the fast moving person is moving into the future at a faster rate than the stationary observer, who is aging faster. They are moving into the future 100 times faster. The distortion of time causes the laws of physics to be the same in any frame of reference and all observers agree on the speed of light, but do not agree on time.
Wanderer101 wrote:What is confusing to humanity is that light moves at the same rate to all other moving frames of reference. This is true because all other frames of reference are adhering to the rules of the Lorentz transformations. These transformations that occur within the moving frames essentially cancels their movements relative to the speed of light. Not well said by me. The physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us.
We seem to be talking the same lingo, you say the rules of the Lorentz transformations, and I talk about how, since it takes an infinite amount of energy to be at the speed of light, and we don't have infinite energy, we never actually get there. I talk about how the idea that mass increases is a mathematical trick to make the laws of physics work, and you say the physical laws described by the Lorentz transformations ensure we always see light as moving at a constant velocity relative to us. I say, that when Einstein decided that time wasn't constant, he discovered the conversion ratio between matter and energy and that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of matter. But here, somehow, you manage, it seems, to dismiss the notion that time isn't constant. Which makes me suspect, what else, are you dismissing?
Of course you are familiar w/this kind of thought experiment--if you got in a rocket ship and accelerated, you could go what seems infinitely fast to you. You could travel to a star 100 light years away and get there by lunch, turn around, and get back to Earth the same day. But you will find that everyone else is 200 years (and one day) older than you are. From their perspective, you were traveling very close to the speed of light and it takes 200 years for light to get to that star and back. But to you, it was only a day. Your aging slowed down because you moved forward through time faster.
What you observe as linear acceleration in space that obeys Newton's laws, isn't what really happens. You start out accelerating in space but as you gain speed you start accelerating through time instead. You can only move at the speed of light in space, but can move infinitely fast through time. To be clear, with trepidation, I suspect that when confronted directly with this, you'll dismiss it as unbelievable. You're that far out of sympathy w/Einstein, then. You're asking me not to believe such stories, right?
What it is, that to you, means that absolute speed exists and absolute space exists, doesn't mean that to me. What would mean that, would be if physics turn out, after all, not to have to appear to be the same at all speeds. What would mean that, would be if the laws of physics changed. Then, okay, one could measure those changes and calculate one's absolute speed through absolute space. If this were possible. As I understand it, that's what they were trying to measure 100 years ago with the light experiment that showed they were dead stopped in space. No matter how fast they go and in any direction, it still shows them as dead stopped.
It's not like a really have a right to an opinion here, I just thought, that according to relativity, there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute speed. What does it mean to say, that these things don't exist. It means, that there can never be a way to measure any changes caused by speed. And, there isn't. Again, what does it mean? It means, that it is necessary that the laws of physics appear to be identical to all moving observers so that you can't measure something that doesn't exist. And, they do. And, you can't.
We've gone back and forth, about whether, if you can measure something, then it's real (my opinion).
I think you disagree, this is a big hurdle for me. Look at it from the other side--what is required, for something to not be real? That it can't be measured. And, guess what, in this case.
What would it take, for absolute space and speed to be not real. What would that mean? it would mean, that no measurable changes can occur that would allow you to calculate it. Which is where we're at.
Do you see, how I think I can take the concept of the laws of physics appearing the same, and the lack of absolute space and speed to be linked.
How can it be, that relativity does not depend on the lack of absolute references.
Why then, can there be no change in physical laws that could be measured, that could lead to a calculation indicating absolute results.
Note, that this law not only applies to speed and position in space, but also to the rate of time passage, to the measurement of mass, and to the relative effects of gravity between objects moving at the same speed.
Again, I suspect, that you rather like to think that all good clocks would agree.
Wanderer101 wrote:
Going to disagree with you here as I believe all mass is variable and is dependent on the rate of accelerated motion of unbalanced charge. In my humble opinion until mankind gets this we shall not progress any further.
If this were the case, then as an object increased in speed, then one could measure the increase in gravitational attraction, and calculate one's speed through absolute space. Suppose two objects are moving in parallel. The mass of both objects will increase, and therefore the gravitational attraction between the two objects must also increase. At very high speeds the pull would be so great as to cause them to crash into each other.
But wait! Red flag here. There is no such thing as absolute speed and absolute space. Einstein's relativity depends on the idea that position and speed are relative, therefore there can be no method for which one can measure absolute speed through absolute space. But if the gravity increases with speed, the gravitational increases can be measured.
The only way to prevent someone from being able to measure one's absolute speed in space is if the gravitational attraction between the objects stays constant.
If gravity doesn't change, then speed can't be measured, and that gravity remains constant for all freely moving objects. The laws of gravity appear the same in all frames of reference. Since gravity doesn't change with speed, one can not calculate speed by measuring gravity. Which brings me to..
Wanderer101 wrote:
The first statement is a contemporary physical belief. “The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object.” If this is what you believe you agree with contemporary science. If you agree with contemporary science on this point we cannot progress any further. In my opinion they have got it all wrong.
But, again, you've thought this through? Do you mean to jump all over the notion, that if nature is constant, mass must be constant, in order to keep gravity constant, therefore the accelerated object will not see the increase in mass.
Then, for you, can gravity increase if mass increases, since gravity is proportional to mass, and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light?
Does it appear to you, that Einstein contradicts himself here, because based on E=MC^2, the increase in mass of an object moving near the speed of light, would create a measurable gravitational change that could be used to calculate speed through absolute space? Which does exist? It would appear Einstein created a paradox?
Einstein's solution was to abandoned the idea that time was absolute, and that different free moving observers would measure time differently. Which, you don't seem to be able to buy into?
So as I say, I think I need an answer here, point blank, Einstein predicts that the moving object will move faster into the future through time and will therefore age slower. You disagree?
With all this, that the aging process slows down, the moving object does not see any crossing of the time barrier he can move near infinitely fast at near infinite speeds? From his perspective? You disagree?
It is thus, that his mass is the same, his gravity is the same, and his speed is nearly infinite. From his frame of reference. Suppose, that he calculates his kinetic energy. He multiplies his unchanged mass times his near infinite speed. But a stationary observer would measure his speed as just under the speed of light, but with a much higher mass. The higher mass times the slower speed will come to the same amount of kinetic energy. Thus the energy levels can agree and the laws of science are preserved in both frames of reference based on the idea that etc.
Do you predict, that a particle accelerated to nearly light speed will appear to increase in mass as Einstein predicts and will have an increased gravitational force proportional to the increase on mass as measured by a stationary observer as it passes.
Do you also predict, that a second particle traveling in parallel will not see an increase in gravitational pull, but that the gravity between the objects will remain constant.
Would you care to test this, if you had a particle accelerator that wasn't doing anything. Would you actually, w/confidence, proceed to check this out and get back to me on it.
I realize, w/these musings, that I sort of can answer your question 'what do think is limiting the speed of light to the rate at which it moves at? ' as being that there is an energy equivalence to time. I've already been puzzling about how to put this. But it occurs to me, that I might be okay with putting it this way, that in fact, time may be a form of energy.
The way I picture it is that a fast moving object appears to itself as normal mass but is 10 times thicker in time.
A stationary observer sees 10 times the mass. It causes me to wonder is mass a three dimensional footprint of a four dimensional object that has some thickness in time.
Perhaps matter itself exists as a thickness distortion in the space time continuum.
Thickness in time appears to us as mass.
Wanderer101 wrote:I have already explained where I believe mass comes from so there is no need to repeat it. It’s all there and you are free to accept my explanation or not. All I can say at this point is mass is definitely not a fundamental property of an object. Mass is a function of motion of charge and its effect on the surrounding space.
Then, an easier one, when Einstein talks about the mass of an object increasing as to approaches light speed, where is that extra mass coming from? Perhaps, as we approach light speed, in three dimensions, we look the same, but in four dimensions, we are 10 times as thick and we are moving into the future at ten times the speed.
This leads me to new thoughts.
The greater the mass, the more space is bent. Or something, this is key, what is 'something', in a robust and technical sense? Gravity is said (by those who understand this better than I do) to be caused by a distortion or a warping of space. I don't actually quite cotton to putting it that way, but I'm not a skeptic of Relativism.
Here is my thought--if mass is really a thickness, which is still sort of making sense to me, then the faster an object moves, and the more apparent mass it has because of that motion, the stronger the gravitational field. Hey?
As one becomes thicker in time the bending would increase proportional to the thickness. 10 times the thickness becomes 10 times the gravity.
However, if another object were moving at the same speed in parallel, then they see only an increase in kinetic energy. Both objects have near infinite speed, they neither see any increase in neither mass nor gravity.
The effects of mass and gravity are inversely proportional to one's..time..thickness..?
Observers moving at different speeds will measure mass and gravity differently
Both mass and gravity are relative to time.
There is a time component to both mass and gravity.
Two space ships traveling together, at a speed so fast that their aging process slows by a factor of two. They are moving forward in time twice as fast. One of the space ships turns on a light. To the other ship, it appears to radiate. The bulb is aging half as fast. It is putting out energy at half that rate to a nonmoving observer.
Time dilation. You double time, you cut power in half, power is the rate that energy is dissipated over time.
mass and gravity increase by a factor of two ( to a nonmoving observer). Mass and gravity stay constant to the moving observer. Change the time reference, then you change gravitational attraction. Gravity has a time component.\
The more thrust you have, the faster you go. But, are really moving into the future faster. It appears to them that they are traveling at near infinite speed. They are moving through flat Newtonian space.
It *looks* like they are moving only at near the speed of light.
An accelerating object *seems* to be going faster through space. At first. But as the speed increases the object accelerates through time rather than space.
One can go infinitely fast moving through time. Hmm..
Doing a little inventory here, I've motion through space turning into motion through time. I've got motion through time appearing as an increase in mass.
Then, is mass the same thing as motion through time?
Then, does motion through time, cause a warping of time? Perceived, as..gravity?
I've got time and space being interwoven in such a way, that no one observer ever sees another object moving toward them at greater than c.
I've got the relative velocity of any two objects, never exceeding the velocity of light.
I've got dobbler shift, I've got twin paradox, boring, now something like nuclear binding energy, would be interesting, but how am I doing so far?