david barclay wrote:Goldminer...I like your thread, there is no reason why light should have a speed other than to limit our knowledge of universe, which is obviously electric.
I am pleased you like my comments, but I am only the original poster; it is not my
thread. Feel free to disagree or whatever!
I'm not sure what you mean here, Dave. Do you mean speed limit as in nothing can go faster than? Two objects approaching or receding from a central point reference at 3/4 the speed of light are exceeding the speed of light half again with respect to each other, unless you are an Einsteinian. Light has a latency with respect to distance, otherwise the electronic distance measuring equipment would not work, unless you can explain another way for them to produce the measurements that they do.
So, no I do not regard "c" as a limit. That's my story and I'm stick'in to it!
david barclay wrote:Light is said to be in linear motion and mush faster than a speeding bullet or even superman and yes there is a time differential between any two systems in motion but that does necessitate or even suggest light itself to be in motion...you view distant objects at a distance.
Do you mean "mush faster" as in dog sledding? Just kidding here, I never do mistakes like that. Want a Walnetto
The time differential exists whether things are in motion
or at rest
with each other. For things at rest with each other
, the differential is the always quoted
speed of light "constant." For things in motion with each other
the "speed of light" depends upon whether the motion is a linear collision course,or non intersecting courses. I am discussing non accelerating motion here. Experiments with one way measurements of this speed are at odds with the Einsteinian view point.
In one respect, "Light" itself is an abstraction of our senses. Yet, cameras yield two dimensional copies of what we experience. Waves travel through their medium without the medium traveling from place to place itself. So in a sense the waves do travel. Yes, we do see distant objects at a distance, and up close objects up close. This is why I insist upon using only a short pulse of light in my "gedankens." Only a pulse from a known source at a given distance can be used to measure the latency of that pulse from being emitted to its detection.
Two short pulses from two sources one close and the other distant from a detector will reveal the time latency between the arrival of the two signals. Contrary to Einsteinians, no problem exists in producing the two pulses simultaneously. In fact this latency was a problem for routed packets on the internet, since some took a longer course than others and would get out of order at the destination. (Internet traffic runs at the speed of light other than the processing at routers and servers.)
The point being that you do indeed perceive both distant and near signals at the same time, however, the more distant were emitted first and are older.
david barclay wrote:The constancy of light speed was originally based on Einstein's perception of a static universe, which he admitted was an error. It was also based on static terms of reference attempting to define the limits of what turned out to be a dynamic universe experiencing accelerated expansion.
Actually, I agree with Einstein's first pinion, that the local Universe is pretty much static, and not accelerating, out to about as far as we can see with our current equipment, but then I am partial to Halton Arp's observations. Have you read his books?
david barclay wrote:If the electrical universe is driven by an underlying force of energy we might consider this same force to be responsible for gravity as well and if so the controlled modulation of this underlying force would allow for instantaneous communication and transport without any further consideration to the limiting factor of light speed intent on convincing us that such a thing should be impossible and or pure fantasy.
I don't have much of an opinion on this; which is unusual for an out spoken old man like me!
david barclay wrote:It is contrary to logic to suggest the past existing at a linear distance from an observers location allows pictures of very ancient events to be photographed through the lens of a telescope. This is funny stuff if you can see the humor in all the straight faces anticipating a glossy pic of the universe at the moment of conception.
I disagree with your first sentence, here. The Light from further away is from earlier events. Hate to be so grumpy about this. However,I do agree with your second sentence. The light from a "Big Bang" (a fantasy in/unto itself) would have come and gone at the "bang." only by exceeding the speed of light by infinity would one be able to "see the bang it self;" and then it would be "seen" at such a distance that you still couldn't see it!
david barclay wrote:If we were waiting on light speed to determine the age and size of universe it would never arrive...the concept of light speed keeps your perception within the limits of a well defined box.
It would never arrive for several reasons, one being as I stated above, said light has already come and gone, this being true where ever you went to look! IMHO, the box
is the preconceived opinion that Einstein has the last word!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.