..JUNE 19  

<<MAY 19

see also: JULY19 >>
 

 

QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE

Wherever light is from, wherever it's headed, and whether I remain still or zoom away in any direction (towards or away from it), still the light always measures to be moving at 'c' TO ME - AND the same light to someone else moving away from or towards me likewise. Obviously what I (or the someone else) experiences and what's actually going on cannot be the same. So what is ACTUALLY going on OUT THERE?

If two objects in space are moving apart and one emits a pulse of light towards the other, then for an outside observer the pulse will take longer to reach the 'other' than if the objects became static (relative to one another) at the instant the pulse was fired. Or you could say: If at the intstant a pulse is fired towards it, the destination object began moving away, then the pulse will take longer to reach it than if it had remained static relative to the source.

This means, from an outside observer’s view, the speed of light must be relative to its source, not destination. Yet, regardless of speed of separation, the destination will always register the speed of that light to be the same: 'c' - including light from any other receding or advancing sources in any direction and regardless of their speed.

So if the relative speed of separation of Earth and a remote galaxy, say, is c/2 then will the light we receive be taking twice as long to get here than we think? Of course, again: when that light does get here its speed will measure to be c, as ever.

* * * * *

Do we really always believe we exist at the centre of everything, as when it was thought the sun moved around the Earth until discovered otherwise? Or is the explanation entirely in the phenomenon of time-dilation between two bodies due to their relative speed?

* * * * *

THIS QUESTION does not challenge current theory regarding the speed of light and relativity etc., so there’s no inconsistency with what's currently accepted, as may at first appear. Nor does Doppler have any relevance; that concerns ONLY frequency or wavelength. The problem addressed here is essentially a separate issue from those.

So can the difference between what an outside observer would measure in the above examples and what the destination would measure on arrival of a pulse of light be due purely to time dilation?

Using the formula:

(this is easy to derive; see: 'time dilation' )

 t’ = t / √ ( 1 - v2/c2 )

 ….there seems to be a discrepancy.

(My knowledge is limited here and other factors may be involved?)

FOR INSTANCE: If an object is launched from Earth at half-c ( c/2 ) and an hour later a beam of light is fired after it, then the beam will reach the object after 2-hours from when the object was launched. An outside observer will see the beam approach the object at c/2, but the object would measure the beam to be passing at c. This appears to show that time-dilation for the object is causing it to age at half the rate of Earth. Yet if the formula is applied then the time on the object moving at c/2 will be 0.707 of that on Earth.

Is the formula incomplete or somehow inapplicable here? The key issue, though, from this reasoning is: Does the light from distant receding galaxies actually travel towards us at a slower rate than we think… that is: are we correct to assume that light is travelling towards us at c just because it measures, inevitably, to be travelling at c when it reaches us (whether we're zooming away from the light or not)?

To repeat for emphasis, the argument might go as follows: To an outside observer, light must be travelling at all kinds of speeds relative to everything else, according to the speed of its source… If an object is moving away from a pulse of light, then to an outside observer that light will take longer to reach the object than if the object was not moving away from the pulse... even if the object ONLY began moving away AFTER the pulse was fired.

You only have to consider two particles being sent in opposite directions, each at, say, 0.8 c... both independently measured... to recognise that outside our little frame of reference the speed that things move in the universe, e-m waves and matter, can be absolutely anything IN FACT.

How does a particle on one side of the galaxy know what's happening on the other side and so regulate its speed accordingly.... the concept is clearly absurd. This concerns what's ACTUALLY happening, NOT what anyone might observe.

Resolving the issue might show that distant galaxies are in fact not nearly as distant as we assume, so the rate of expansion of the universe may, after all, NOT be increasing as seems to be the prevailing wisdom these days (?).

If you flew a spaceship from Earth to Alpha Centuri and back for what you judged a couple of years, say, so your normal watch registered a couple of years had passed, and an atomic clock the same, plus it felt like a couple of years, YET when you got back several decades had passed, and people told you that several decades had passed, THEN who/what would you believe? 

Looking at where the trip had taken you, you'd realise the distances for the time you've aged mean you far exceeded c, though no-one observing you from Earth saw that. Moreover, during the trip light would have never seemed to you any different from normal, apart from its wavelength.

You'd say: "...maybe several decades HAVE passed, but that's for YOU, not me. For ME only a few years have passed."

This is the essence of the issue: of people, science, placing themselves at the centre of a situation, reluctant or unable to perceive from another angle.

The reality is, everything in the universe is its own 'centre' and no other entity can impose its circumstances on another as people always like to do and claim ONLY they are right.... when the fact is they are ONLY right for themselves.

I've sent those observations/questions - months ago - to different sites that claim to examine and address these kinds of science questions. But, surprise surprise, there has been no response.

One site did address a question that touches another related contentious issue:

Physics Question:


"Assume two photons are moving in opposite directions from each other from a common light source. How fast would they be traveling relative to each other? Twice the speed of light? If the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe, how can something travel twice that speed?"

The answer 'proves' that 2c = c..... 

That works for the theory and can be shown to be true experimentally, perhaps? But not when examined deductively. That is, supposing you simultaneously fire two pulses of light in opposite directions at mirrors a certain same distance away and measured how long they each took to receive back - which would be identical - then divide that time by 2 and you'll have the exact time the pulse took from firing to simultaneously hit the mirrors. Divide the distance between the mirrors by that time and you get the 'deduced' relative speed of the two beams. 

I'm not remotely a betting person, but I'd like to have a small bet with the guy who answered that question on 'addition of velocities' of whether my 'fool-proof' deduction procedure, were it carried out, would prove the theory right or wrong.

This is merely another example of how everything in the universe is its own centre that operates in a frame of its own - though is almost 100% shared until relative speeds comparable to the speed of light are involved....  

Just as Einstein noticed what Newton failed to and modified Newton's work - which is still correct for virtually all practical everyday applications - then maybe what Einstein noticed also needs some modifications to account for other discrepancies that seem to appear.... like distant galaxies receding at close to the speed of light (relative to us).

-------//------