Monday, August 20, 2007

Light has no speed

This is truly a random insight. I'm sure a real physicist will tear this down in a few seconds, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
If you mess with the math a bit on the equation e=mc2, then space and time at the speed of light shrink to nothing, and the person’s mass and energy expand to infinity.

If this is so, then from light’s perspective, its speed is infinite. Why then does light seem to have a measurable speed?

or, if the speed of light is a constant, meaning that if a ray confronts someone going the opposite direction, and its speed is the same for them as someone going the same direction as the ray, then it is that their concept of distance and time changes to keep the speed of light constant.

So from the perspective of the ray of light, its speed is infinite; that is, it gets from point a to point b instantly with no lapse of time whatsoever.

So the measurers of the ray’s speed relative to the light may “clock” it at appr 186,000 miles /second, mathematically from the light’s perspective it must move instantaneously, and the measurers must be at a complete standstill.

Thus from the light’s perspective, it is nonsensical to think of “measuring” its “speed”; it exists simultaneously at all points along its path between wooden statues of men. How long does it take a bridge to travel from one end to its other end? it exists simultaneously at both ends, its speed is infinite. It makes no sense to discuss its speed.

That is why it is perhaps wrong to call light a wave or a particle. A wave requires a substance through which to move; this is the antiquated idea of ether. Nor is it a particle. Radiation must be simply a bit of the "E=mc2" stuff liberated suddenly into 2 or three dimensions, existing simultaneously in all points, perhaps increasing its length or volume for some reason over time to give the illusion of speed.

For the light, which is "E=mc2" stuff liberated suddenly into 2 or three dimensions, to exist at all, it must exist over time. I believe it is this which gives it the illusion of speed.

now if E=mc2, then matter is energy kind of balled up; yet if we have knowledge of the things existence at all, something has radiated from it to speak of it to our senses.

Thus I theorize that what they are measuring is not light’s speed, but similar bursts of radiation reverberating at different times along the path of the light’s path. That is, it exists in its entire volume through time, existing simultaneously along its entire path, and perhaps its speed is simply its length growing longer through time. It really has no SPEED, only length through time. It is a particle of the "E=mc2" stuff whose mass is liberated or simultaneously spread. There is obviously no difference between what we arbitrarily call "matter" and "energy"; it is the same stuff occupying a different sphere of influence.

Why is m so much smaller than E? it is the same stuff, somehow trapped into a smaller sphere of existence. Yet even at that, it is the same thing, having simultaneous existence along all paths of influence. C, the supposed velocity of light, is simply the rate of increase of the liberated "particle"'s influence over time. It is not traveling, it is growing, its mass spread over a larger sphere over time.

Why does it do this?????!!!!!!

yet how can light be such and yet have a "wavelength" such that we seem to be able to measure a doppler effect if the source of the radiation is moving away from us or toward us?

It must be some kind of shape or wavelet pattern which exists throughout the liberated "E=mc2" stuff's volume simultaneously over time, perhaps really having to do with its rate of volume increase over time. However, its rate of volume increase must be "c", the supposed speed of light. The difference would be the distance gained and the time interval awaited to achieve its gain.

C = Volume of influence increase /time elapsed to acheive its increase.

If the "E=mc2" stuff (let's call it "Q") changes its volume of influence ("I") at the rate of C, then what would be observed as a shorter wavelength increases I at shorter intervals of time, faster, than Q which is observed as having a longer "wavelength". Time elapsed is "T".

So, C = I/T; I = CT; T = I/C

ha ha, I've solved the puzzle of what time actually is! At least in terms of physics.

So, Q = E = mc2

Q = m(I/T)2

Q/(IT)2 = m

wow! the mass of something is really nothing more than its substance Q spread over its sphere of influence over time.

My math ability stops about right here, unfortunately, although I know there are some great and profound things to be discovered beyond this point in manipulating the equations.

This doesn't seem to make sense when you stand back and look at what it is saying, but how else can you interpret it all?

The real problems are these:
1. what exactly is “influence” ?
2. what is this “Q”? expressed mathematically, it is I think this fervor over new “particles” is perhaps wrong; these are all just different manifestations of Q, which can only be understood in the framework of these equations; that is, they are Q influencing in differing ways.

The real problem becomes, exactly what is "influence"? m and E are really nothing more than differences in the amount of influence.

influence indicates relationship, and relationship is meaningless without some common ground of interpretation. In other words, light has "speed" only because the instruments measuring its presence are not influenced at one point in time, and become influenced at another point in time.

Perhaps influence can be understood as a portion of Q changing its I when it resonates with another portion of Q encountering it.

No comments: